He knew that the authorization which was issued was not an order given to the doctor, but only conferred on him the right to act on his own responsibility after the most careful consideration of the patient’s condition. This was a clause inserted in the ordinance of 1 September 1939 on Karl Brandt’s initiative. The defendant Karl Brandt knew that the specialists, whom he did not know, were chosen by the Ministry of the Interior, and that the experts were eminent men in their special spheres. The defendant Karl Brandt also knew that the authorities concerned saw no reason to object to the execution of the measure, and that even the chief jurists of the Reich declared the legal foundations to be irreproachable, after having been informed of the facts. Within this framework the defendant Karl Brandt approved of official euthanasia and supported it. But the prosecution even calls euthanasia a thousand-fold murder. In their opinion there was no formal law, and it is alleged that the expert Dr. Lammers confirmed this. Yes, but he also stated that even an informal ordinance was valid. Even an order issued by the Fuehrer had the force of law, as can be clearly seen from the indisputable effects of such orders, in particular in relation to foreigners. But for the defendant Karl Brandt it is of no importance whether the ordinance of 1 September 1939 was actually valid or not; the only important thing is that he had reason to believe it was valid and that he could rely on this opinion. German courts have already dealt with cases of the practice of euthanasia; but these cases occurred after the official procedure had been stopped, as at Hadamar, or after persons had been killed who could never have come under the powers conferred by the ordinance, or other crimes were committed. It should be observed that these sentences always confirm the base motives of the offenders. On the other hand, these courts were concerned with the question of public law only to the extent that they confirm that no formal law was available. In one case the court restricted itself to information given by a member of the prosecution staff in the trial before the International Military Tribunal. The real objections to euthanasia are not based on a formal point of view, but rather on the same reasons which are advanced against the admissibility of the medical experiments. Even an insane person of the lowest grade may not be killed it is said. No human being may presume to kill another human being. But the right to kill in war is accepted in international law, and public law allows the suppression of a revolt by violence. What prevents the state from ordering killing in the sphere of euthanasia too? The answer is that there is no motive which might justify an action of this kind.