A. I do not believe so because they would not know. How would they know whether the doctor had a drug that would or would not relieve? The doctor would not know himself, because he would have to experiment first. Q. Witness, I put a hypothetical case to you. If we are to turn to reality other questions would arise. I simply want to hear now your general attitude to this problem. You are then of the opinion that a doctor should not carry out the order. Are you also of the opinion that the politician should not give such an order? A. Yes. I believe he should not give such an order. Q. Is this not a purely political decision which must be left at the discretion of the political leader? A. Not necessarily. He should seek the best advice that he can obtain. Q. If he is informed that this one experiment on this one prisoner would save the whole city, he may give the order despite the fact that the doctor does not wish to carry it out, is that what you think? A. He could then give the order, but if the doctor still believed that it was contrary to his moral responsibilities, then the doctor should not carry out the order. Q. That is another question, whether or not he carries it out, but in such cases you consider it is permissible to give that order, is that what I understood you to say? A. After he has obtained the best advice on the subject which he can obtain. Q. Then he can give the order. Yes or no? A. Yes. * * * * * G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute for Penalties a. Introduction Several of the defendants argued that medical experiments, alleged as criminal, upon concentration camp inmates were justified because they were a substitute for penalty or punishment previously imposed on the experimental subjects. Counsel for the defendant Gebhardt argued that the experimentation amounted to a complete pardon as sentences of death had been imposed and hence that the experimentation, not always deadly, saved human lives. The prosecution’s argument on this point is illustrated by an extract from the closing statement, set forth on pages 44 to 49. On this general question, selections have been taken from the closing brief for the defendant Karl Brandt and from the final plea of the defendant Gebhardt. These appear below on pages 49 to 56. The following selections from the evidence appear in pages 56 to 61: extract from the direct examination of the defendant Mrugowsky; cross-examination of the prosecution’s expert witness, Dr. Andrew C. Ivy. b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION_[9] * * * * *