WITNESS LEIBBRANDT: By biological thought I mean the attitude of a physician who does not take the subject into consideration at all, but for whom the patient has become a mere object, so that the human relationship no longer exists, and a man becomes a mere object like a mail package. Q. You spoke of thinking as a biologist. Do I understand that you see therein an action belonging to biological thought? A. An exaggeration of the purely mechanical or biological point of view, because the physician is not merely a biologist, he is also a biologist. Primarily, however, a physician is a man who assists the human being and not a scientific judge of biological events. Q. Could there not be other causes for the experiments, such as a collective state thinking? A. Yes. Q. Witness, you used the expression “demoniac order”. What do you mean by that? A. By demoniac order I mean the following: If I define as a basis for medical activity merely the maintenance and safeguarding of the substance of the nation according to blood, the result is that everything which falls outside this pretense has to be cleared away. That is a mild expression of what actually happened, namely, extermination. Q. Then your demoniac order only refers to the blood aspect. Could it not be applied to the purely state collective aspect as well? A. Could you give an example so that I can understand it better? Q. I mean that experiments were undertaken and that the voluntary act of the individual is replaced by the act of the state, namely, by the voluntary approval given by the state. A. Between the collective idea and the state order on the one hand and the medical individual on the other, there stands something rather important—the human conscience. * * * * * Q. Professor, if all these experiments were actually conducted, and also as you said this morning and as Moll’s book shows, Moll alone published approximately six hundred works about thousands of such experiments (on human beings), must one not say that wide circles of medical men judge the question of experiments on human beings under certain conditions differently from you—from an ethical point of view? A. That I cannot say, because even Moll writes at the end of this work that it is part of a physician’s morals to restrain his urge for natural research in favor of the basic medical attitude as laid down in the oath of Hippocrates, namely, to cause no arbitrary harm to his patient. Q. But in your opinion, Professor, how should a doctor work in the interest of suffering humanity in cases where, as you have just said, there is no possibility of experiments on animals? A. The concept of humanity is a very dangerous concept. It is most dangerous of all for the physician. For the physician, the individual stands above all humanity and the individual unfortunately has sunk very low in these last few years.