Q. I believe that you have not quite answered my question. I asked: How do you think the doctor should solve certain questions even in the interest of the individual—questions which cannot be tested with animal experiments and test tubes, as is the case with malaria for instance. This is a problem which must be cleared up if he is to help his suffering patients. A. That is naturally a very difficult question. But in the end the main thing will always be that a risk must have certain limits. Q. Thank you. Now I come to another point. This morning, Professor, you expressed disapproval about a book which the defendant Mrugowsky wrote on medical ethics. May I ask, have you read this book? A. Yes. Q. Do you know Mrugowsky personally? A. No. Q. Then you do not know his ethical point of view? A. I said that it was quite an ironical joke of world history for someone to quote the high medical ethics of Hufeland in the form of excerpts from his writings, as far as I remember, with a few connecting words and to combine these quotations in a modest little volume, while on the other hand we now know how it was entangled organizationally with the deeds under discussion here. I am only speaking about the entanglement and not about the objective guilt which has not yet been proved. Q. And from where else do you infer Mrugowsky’s entanglement with the facts under discussion here, apart from the fact that he is one of the defendants indicted? A. After all, he was the Chief of the SS Hygienic System, and the medical principles of an ethical nature personified by the SS have become clear to me during the last few years. There seems to me to be a large gap between these two things, between these deeds of SS medical ethics and the ethics of Hufeland. I might perhaps understand how a man like Mr. Haubhold could be enthusiastic about a one-sided interpretation of political medicine by Josef Peter Frank in the 18th century. But I cannot understand how the SS ethics can be connected up with the honest ethics of Christian Hufeland. Q. Professor, you just told us you do not know Mrugowsky at all? A. No. Q. Then how can you express a judgment on his personal ethical attitude? You are merely judging from the fact that he belonged to the SS. Before you express such an opinion as you are doing, before you talk about a joke of world history, must you not first know the personal attitude of the person you are criticizing, and is it not quite possible that his personal attitude was such as is expressed in this book? A. I don’t believe that one can hold a leading position in the SS and then talk about such personal ethics, unless, of course, in ethical questions one does what is called double bookkeeping. Q. But you admit that all your criticism is pure assumption, in no way based on personal knowledge of the person criticized? A. I do not know Mr. Mrugowsky. Q. Thank you. I have no more questions.