The economic motive of eliminating “useless eaters” is certainly not sufficient for such measures. Such a motive was never upheld by the defendant Karl Brandt; it was apparently mentioned by others as an accompanying contingency and later taken up by counter propaganda. The defendant Karl Brandt considered the motive of pity for the patient to be the decisive one. This motive is tacitly accepted for euthanasia on the deathbed, and doctors in all countries increasingly acknowledge it. In former times the courts were repeatedly concerned with killings committed out of pity, and in sensational trials, juries found offenders not guilty who freed their nearest relatives from the torment of life. Who would not have the desire to die while in good health rather than to be forced by all the resources of medical science to continue life degraded to an animal’s existence! Only misguided civilization keeps such beings alive; in the normal struggle for existence Nature is more charitable. But the legislator has hitherto refrained from giving authority to kill in such cases. But he can solve the problem if he wants to. The reasons for his restraint are exactly those which led in this case to the disguising of those measures and to the secrecy observed. There is the fear of base intrigues concerning inheritance, the mental burden of the relatives, and so on. The individual does not want to bear this burden, nor is he able to do so. It can be taken over only by the state, which is independent of the desires of those concerned. That such is the will of the great majority of those who really come into touch with these problems was shown by the result of the inquiry conducted by Professor Meltzer, which has been offered in evidence. It was carried out by him many years ago in order to obtain an argument against euthanasia and its principal supporters, Binding and Hoche. He obtained the reverse of what he had himself expected as an expert. But I see a third motive which unconsciously plays an important part; it is the idea of sacrifice. A lunatic may cause the mental and economic decay of a family and also ruin it morally. If healthy human beings make great sacrifices for the community and lay down their lives by order of the state, the insane person, if he could arouse himself mentally and make a decision, would choose a similar sacrifice for himself. Why should not the state be allowed to enact this sacrifice in his case and impose on him what he would want to do himself? Is the state to be forbidden to carry out such euthanasia until the whole world is a hospital, while the creatures of nature keep unblemished through what is believed to be the brutality of Nature? The decision as to whether such an order given by the state is admissible or not depends on the conception of the social life of mankind and is, therefore, a political decision.