1947-06-16, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 16 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in court except for the defendant Oberheuser, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Has there been a medical certificate filed?
THE MARSHAL: For the defendant the proper medical certificate signed by the prison surgeon will be filed later.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Oberheuser, who is ill, and proper medical certificate will be filed later.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, last week the witness Josef Tschofenik arrived here in Nuernberg from Klagenfurt, Austria. Klagenfurt is in the British zone in Austria. The witness Tschofenik will be unable to stay in Nuernberg any extended length of time. The prosecution had anticipated that rebuttal would be here by this week but unfortunately we were a little bit optimistic. The prosecution requests that we be permitted to call the witness Tschofenik upon the completion of testimony of Dr. Ivy and the testimony of the defendant Beiglboeck, so that he may return to his home without any further delay.
THE PRESIDENT: Your request is, counsel, that this witness Tschofenik be called after the completion of the testimony of the defendant Beiglboeck?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor, or whatever is convenient for the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is very reasonable. Your request will be granted. The witness may be called out of order after the completion of the testimony of the defendant Beiglboeck.
MR. HARDY: The prosecution will file due notice with the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now proceed with the further cross examination of the witness, Professor Ivy. I note that Dr. Nelte desires fifteen minutes to cross-examine the witness. The Tribunal will now hear the cross examination by Dr. Nelte.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, first representing Dr. Servatius, I should like to ask the rest of the questions which he did not have the opportunity to ask on Saturday. When asked, he stated that he had another half hour's questions to ask. I ask the Tribunal to rule whether or not I may ask these questions in Dr. Servatius's stead.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte may cross-examine the witness on behalf of his associate, Dr. Servatius. We will allow three quarters of an hour for Dr. Nelte's cross-examination.
DR. ANDREW IVY — Resumed
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. NELTE:
Q: Professor Ivy, according to your testimony, there were two groups of conscientious objectors, the ones who repudiated for idealistic reasons and the others who repudiated war services per se. The latter group was sent to prison and the first formed an organization that performed public service. Is that correct?
A: It is not correct just as you have expressed it. There is one group that refused to render any sort of public service or to cooperate in any way and that particular group is confined. There is another group that is willing to do various things. Some of them are willing to give service in the Medical Corps of the army. Some of them are willing to give service in the Quartermaster's Department. Some are not willing to be connected with the armed forces in any way but are willing to give public service in a state hospital as an orderly or male nurse.
They are willing to give service in preventing forest fires and in other ways.
Q: Then one of these duties in the way of public service participated in by this second group of conscientious objectors was the duty to serve in medical experiments. Is that not so?
A: Yes, they volunteered on occasion to serve as subjects in medical experiments. They thought by so serving they would contribute to the advancement of medical knowledge which would be of general service in taking care of sick and afflicted people.
Q: Now, in order to receive a statement of their consent which would be necessary for the experiments, were those who had declared their readiness to participate in any experiment informed as to what the experiment would be like?
A: That is correct.
Q: How was this done? In particular, was this done by a doctor or by some official?
A: The doctor would write out the objective of the experiment, its nature, and describe any hazards, if any, attached to the experiment, and then this would be submitted to the prospective volunteer generally by means of the lay supervisor of the station wherever these conscientious objectors might be. Then, when the conscientious objector volunteered and came to the station where the experiment was to be carried out, then a physician would, by word of mouth, explain the objective and nature of the experiment.
Q: You say the doctor told him the purpose and tasks involved in the experiment? I should like to take a concrete example. In the case of malaria experiments, of which you know, were for example—
A: The malaria experiments were not performed on conscientious objectors.
Q: They worked with prisoners and I assume, from your previous testimony, that the prisoners also were informed and oriented. Is that not so?
A: Yes, and before they volunteered.
Q: Well, were these prisoners in the malaria experiments told that they would run a high temperature?
A: Yes.
Q: Were they also told that the experimental subjects would suffer severe complications, for instance, a severe septic thrombosis, or that their heart muscles would be affected?
A: They were told all possible hazards. As a matter of fact, they were told that they might suffer relapses for a couple of years. And I might say that in the United States in the South malaria is quite a common disease and most people know what the disease is like. They hardly have to be informed regarding the symptoms of malaria.
Q: Do you believe that the experimental subjects, who are laymen after all, really have a clear conception of what the doctor tells them about the symptoms of the disease they are about to suffer?
A: In the case of malaria I am quite sure that they do have a very clear idea. As a matter of fact, the first group of prisoners had the chills and various symptoms of malaria. The other prisoners in the penitentiary obviously heard about these symptoms and they later volunteered to serve as subjects. As a matter of fact, there were more volunteers in the penitentiary to serve as subjects than could be used and that is the situation today, even though the malaria experiments have been going on now since October 1944.
Q: I simply want to ascertain whether in all the experiments the person who gives his consent really is aware of the extent of what he is confronted with. Let us say in the case of typhus; were these potential experimental subjects given a clear picture of what they were confronted with through pictures and demonstrations?
A: Do you mean the subjects who volunteered to receive the typhus vaccine to which I referred? All they had to fear there was the same sort of reactions that are obtained when one receives typhoid vaccine and almost everyone in the United States has received injections of typhoid vaccine of some sort of analogical substance. I know of no situation in which the hazards of a medical experiment cannot be satisfactorily explained to and understood by a prospective volunteer.
Q: That would depend on how high the intellectual level of the experimental subject is. I should think that in prisons there are people who are simple and do not have a general education and whose intellectual ability is perhaps not quite so great as the Doctor supposes. Is that not possible?
A: I suspect or would believe that the doctor would take that into consideration.
Q: Well, we shall come back to that. Now, in every experiment there are various experimental series and among others a series embracing control experiments. Is that not so?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: But that is customary; isn't it?
A: It depends on the nature of the experiment, sometimes the preceding animal work serves as the control.
Q: In this trial we have heard that if one is aiming at a specific result involving the efficacy of a vaccine, one series is vaccinated with a known vaccine, then later with another series and not given a protective vaccine but is nevertheless infected. It seems to me that this is the only way of having any comparison; is that not also you practice?
A: That depends on the nature of the control, whether you give virulent virus or organism. We do not consider it ethical to give virulent virus or organism to non-protected persons. When you develop a typhus vaccine, we follow the development of anti-bodies in the body of the patient given the vaccine.
Q: Then you testify that you had no control series at all that was infected with virulent bacilli?
A: That is correct.
Q: You said that the experimental subjects could leave the experiment at any time?
A: Yes.
Q: Does this not contradict the contents of the statement of consent, according to which the persons who consents must follow all the rules and orders?
A: No, not necessarily.
Q: But if he has to follow all the orders that the Doctor gives him, then he cannot leave the experiment?
A: Well, he does not agree not to express the desire to leave the experiment at any time. As a matter of fact, I have indicated that to my knowledge no volunteer has expressed the desire to leave an experiment.
Q: But, it is possible that we shall not always have so many idealists as experimental subjects; as one of the basic preconditions you stated that it was the experimental subject's right to withdraw from the experiment?
A: That is right.
Q: Now what about the case of such a withdrawal when the experimental subject is already infected, already has a fever; is it not from the practical point of view impossible for the experimental subject to withdraw once he has taken this first step?
A: In the case of malaria, that is true but that not true of all cases.
Q: It was precisely in the case of malaria that I wanted to show that the possibility of withdrawal does not for practical purposes in many cases exist at all.
Professor, do you know the name of Professor Leibrandt?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Do you consider Professor Leibrandt a conscientious and authoritative scholar?
A: I am not familiar with all of his writings and saying; I consider him to be a conscientious man, yes.
Q: Do you believe that his attitude toward medical ethics is a good and correct one?
A: I am not familiar with his attitude toward medical ethics.
Q: Professor Leibrandt was called before this Tribunal as an expert witness by the Prosecution and questions regarding professional medical ethics in the field of research were put to him. You have here testified that the prisoner's statement of consent, prisoners in American prisons, were to be regarded as volunteer statements of consent and that from the profession ethical point of view there could be no misgiving regarding such an act of consent, nor about having the experiments carried out; is that so?
A: Yes.
Q: I should like to put to you what the other prosecution expert witness said regarding this point before this Tribunal. He was asked:
Witness are you of the view that a prisoner, who has been in prison for over ten years, will give his consent for an experiment if he receives no advantage from this; do you consider such consent to have been voluntarily given?
The expert witness answered:
No, according to medical ethics that is not the case, because the patient or the prisoner first of all finds himself in a state of coercion, since he is in preventive custody and secondly because he is a lay-man and has no way of calculating the effects of an operation on himself.
As a lay-man, he is simply not in a position to do that.
Question: Are you of the view that eight hundred prisoners, who are detained at various places and who give their consent for experiments do so voluntarily?
Answer: No.
Question: You are not answering that in consideration of whether or not the experiment leads to lasting or only temporary injury to the prisoner?
Answer: Even in the last case, my answer is still no.
Question: If such persons are infected with malaria, because they have declared their readiness; do you consider that possible?
Answer: No, because such a voluntary statement of consent is not right from the point of view of medical ethics. These men, as prisoners, find themselves under a state of coercion.
Thereupon the witness was shown the magazine Life, 4 June 1944, and this is Document Karl Brandt No. 1. In this document which I wish to touch on very briefly it says that in the United States Prison in Atlanta, in the State Prison in Illinois, and in the Reform School in New Jersey, roughly 800 prisoners have declared their readiness to have themselves infected with malaria so that doctors could study the disease. And, in a further passage in this document it says that the malaria experiments in penitentiaries have shown that malaria is still a very serious medical problem and it says further on page 46 of the report:
Severe chills are the first symptoms of malaria. The above patient is an inmate of the Atlanta Penitentiary where malaria experiments were begun and developed.
Then below, underneath is the last picture under which the caption is:
fever was as high as 106°, severe chills 20 to 60 minutes. One of the cases was allowed to proceed to a late stage before drugs were given to combat it.
After the expert had seen this report he was asked:
Please give your expert opinion on this experiment as regards medical permissibility.
Professor Leibrandt answered:
I cannot change my previously stated opinion about medical ethics involved. I am of the opinion that such experiments as these are an ill chosen form of biological thinking. And I point out particularly that when I made my testimony just now I agree with Ebermeier, the Jurist, from his book "Der Arzt im Recht", and I also pointed out that the patient when giving such approval cannot calculate the consequences of having given his consent and if on the basis of my own experience as a malaria therapeutist and as a psychiatrist, in which capacity I am accustomed to giving malaria cures to paralytics, then from this point of view I must say that malaria is a very serious disease because it has complications as a consequence, for instance severe sceptic thrombosis or effects on the heart muscles that have death as a consequence. And, it is my opinion that we are not dealing here with the infection of someone with a little sniffle but with a very serious disturbance which theoretically always may have death as a consequence.
And in view of this such experiments should be carried out on guinea pigs and not on human beings.
Will you please say whether this attitude of Professor Leibrandt does not have an ethical foundation.
A: I do not agree with that statement of Professor Leibrandt. First, the prisoners, the experience with our prisoner volunteers in the United States is a fact showing that that does not hold and, secondly, he assumes that prisoners cannot be motivated to take part in medical experiments by humanitarian incentives. This is contrary to our experience.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I might ask defense counsel just what he intends to prove by this examination. With the exception of three questions, the questions and answers which have been given here yesterday have been covered on Friday and Saturday by Dr. Servatius himself. Seems to me that Dr. Nelte here has wasted thirty-five minutes. Can't he get on to his point and finish the examination that Dr. Servatius has ably taken up on Saturday.
DR. NELTE: Dr. Servatius did not approach this question. I think we are wasting time at any rate, that is the way the interpreter translated Mr. Hardy's words. If we accentuate the discussions to the questions that the defense counsel is asking in his conviction they are of definite importance. Mr. Hardy wants to know why I am asking these questions — for the following reasons: Professor Leibrandt —
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it appears from the testimony of the witness that he does not in all respects agree with the opinions of Dr. Leibrandt who testified here on behalf of the Prosecution. Seems to me that that matter, in view of the press of time, need not be expiated upon further since you counsel have asked for so much time which has been accorded. The fact that there is a difference of opinion of the two expert witnesses on behalf of Prosecution is clearly before the Tribunal now.
DR. NELTE: Quite so. That was the purpose of my line of questioning and that's the reason I wanted to protest against the statement that this examination of the witness by me was a waste of time.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter for the Tribunal to determine entirely, doctor. Proceed.
BY DR. NELTE: I have one last question to ask in behalf of Dr. Servatius:
Q: Professor Ivy, you said that for you and for doctors in general the Hippocratic oath is the principle according to which you act, in that so?
A: Yes, that expresses the basic ideas.
Q: In connection with this trial you worked out a basic policy for the permissibility of experimentation and you regard this policy you worked out of general validity and hold it to be necessary. Because the Hippocratic oath contains no precise statement on these matters of human experimentation became of importance only in the course of relative modern medicine, is that not so?
A: Yes.
Q: Then this general statement of ethical policy that you testified to here is not of eternal validity but is conditioned in terms of time and in terms of space and subject to certain inevitable changes that humanity goes through, is that correct?
A: No. I believe the oath of Hippocrates teaches a fundamental basic truth that is good for all time, namely reverence for life. Just as the principle of the golden rule teaches a moral and ethical principle that is good for all eternity or for all time.
Q: You are correct in saying the basic principle of ethics is reverence for life. That is true for the doctor and is true also for all man. In this I agree with you, do I not?
A: I presume so.
Q: However, you know that every State requires its soldiers in times of war to render its opponents harmless and to kill them.
Is that not so? The State releases a soldier from a soldier's highest ethical principle, this principle of reverence of human life, and it does so morally and with regard to penalty.
A: Defensive war seems to be a necessary evil but even in war a physician takes care of soldiers, be he friend or foe, with us of the medical profession is an exception in war time.
Q: I simply want to make it clear, and I don't think we are of two minds in this matter, that the State has the possibility of releasing human beings from their moral and legal responsibilities if it does so in the interest of the State, isn't that so?
A: Yes, in the United States you don't have to fight if you believe that it is wrong.
Q: I doubt whether the translation came through correct. Would you please repeat your answer, doctor? I asked whether or not we are of one mind in our belief that the State has the right for reasons of national necessity because of a state of war to free its citizens from moral and legal responsibility and you said —
A: I believe it does, but in the United States if a person believes it wrong to fight and to kill people in the course of battle, he does not have to take up arms. We have conscientious objectors in the United States to which I have already referred.
Q: Do you consider the actions of the conscientious objector to be as ethically pure as the actions of the soldier?
A: I do.
Q: Then you are saying that men who follow the orders of the state, namely the soldiers, and men who refuse to follow those orders, namely the conscientious objectors, are ethically on the same level?
A: I do, although I do not agree with them.
Q: Would not the absolute affirmation of the person's right to refuse to serve in the war lead to the ultimate dissolution of the state and hence to the state's inability to defend itself?
A: Well, some believe that war is futile and they think they can defend that position. Others believe that defensive war is necessary and that aggressive war is an evil.
Q: Have you ever seen a case in history where a state admits that it itself is carrying on an aggressive war? Do not all states insist they they are carrying on a justified and legal war?
A: That does not make their claim true.
Q: But the citizen of a state must decide whether what he is doing is good or evil. Would a citizen of the United States believe his own state or believe the views that he hears over the radio from Germany or France?
A: We have difference of opinion in the United States and we tolerate that difference of opinion.
Q: I am asking whether the citizen, as a simple citizen is more or less obliged or coerced to hear what the state tells him.
If, for example, he is called to arms; How is he to decide whether the reasons for the government's decision are good or bad?
A: In a democracy, the citizens elect their own legislators who determine that. Totalitarianism and democracy are two different worlds of thought and behavior and it is difficult to reconcile them.
Q: Must not the citizens of totalitarian states obey their governments?
A: I do not believe that they should.
Q: Do you mean to state that the citizen of any totalitarian state should refuse to obey the orders of his government?
A: I agree.
Q: In that case, witness, no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Did Dr. Steinbauer desire to address the Tribunal?
DR. STEINBAUER (Defense Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): Mr. President, I have purely medical questions to put to the witness concerning themselves solely with the sea water case. I ask that I like the other counsel be permitted to ask these questions through my client, apart from a few general questions which I am going to put myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, your client may propound purely scientific and medical questions as Dr. Ruff was allowed to the other day. We shall finish first with these shorter cross examinations and then proceed with your questions, but I noticed you rise in your place and I thought perhaps you had some matter to call to the attention of the Tribunal. Cross examination by yourself in behalf of the defendant Beiglboeck will be taken up after the shorter cross examinations are completed.
Does Dr. Flemming desire to cross examine the witness for fifteen minutes?
We will hear from Dr. Flemming.
DR. FLEMMING: Dr. Fritz for Dr. Rose desires to ask a few questions in this connection also.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, Dr. Flemming, but we will hear you now for fifteen minutes if you desire to cross examine the witness.
BY DR. FLEMMING (Defense counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky):
Q: Professor, is it an offense against the professional duties of a doctor, in your opinion, if a doctor refuses to help a patient solely because the patient is an enemy of the state?
A: No, I do not believe that a doctor should refuse medical services to a person because he is an enemy of the state or even an enemy of the doctor.
Q: Such refusal of medical services would then be an offense against the medical and professional duties of the doctor, in your opinion, would it not?
A: I believe so.
Q: A doctor who expressed such an opinion — would you deny him the right to lay down policies for correct ethical medical behavior?
A: I answered my statement because I believe his acts were contrary to the teachings of medical ethics.
Q: Are you familiar with Hippocrates' works, or only with his oath?
A: I am familiar with some of his works, not all of them.
Q: In particular, do you know Hippocrates' fifth letter?
A: No, I do not.
Q: If I tell you that Hippocrates stated in his letter #5:
I shall not have any advantage from the rightness of the Persians nor shall I treat a Persian because he is an enemy of the Greek state.
Now, if Hippocrates says this would you still be of the opinion that Hippocrates, who expressed such an opinion, is the right man for lying down the basic principles of medical ethics?
A: No, that is not coincident with practices today. I don't know that he said that.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, if Dr. Flemming wishes to refer to any of the works of Hippocrates, I suggest that he make them available to Dr. Ivy prior to questioning thereon.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel simply said:
If Hippocrates said that what was the witness' opinion of the statement.
It was based purely on an assumption.
Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q: Mr. President, the question was not hypothetical. Rather, Hippocrates actually did say that in his letter #5. Unfortunately, I cannot put the passage to the witness because I have it only in a German text.
Witness, in your testimony you have said that even today the oath of Hippocrates is still the basic policy for medical behavior. Let me ask you now, what role does the oath of Hippocrates play in American medicine? Does the doctor in America take the oath of Hippocrates?
A: When he graduates from some medical schools he does, other not.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, if you have, in a reputable German translation, the letter of Hippocrates which you mention, you may read that portion of the translation into the record giving the volume, the page and the work in which it is found.
DR. FLEMMING: Because this is in German I did not bring it along with me, but I can do so later if you wish.
THE PRESIDENT: I am simply affording counsel the opportunity to do that if he desires.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q: Witness, I have put the Oath of Hippocrates in evidence in this trial, first in the classical version and, secondly, in the version that is used in France. The two versions are radically different. Therefore, I should like to know what version of the Hippocrates Oath is used in America? Can you tell me whether it is a literal translation of the ancient oath or is it a new formulation?
A: According to my best recollection, it is a translation of the original oath. The American Medical Association, however, has developed its basic principles to apply to modern conditions, but the basic principles have not been altered.
Q: Then the Hippocrates Oath that is taken in America is a further development of the ancient Hippocrates Oath and incorporates modern conceptions, if I understand you correctly?
A: The principles of the Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association is a document of some 5,000 to 10,000 words. Each principle of the Oath of Hippocrates is developed to indicate how they apply to modern conditions of medical practice, how they apply to the choice of students for entrance into medical school, and how they apply to group practice, the practice of industrial medicine, and other economic and social conditions that did not exist in the time of Hippocrates. The basic principle of reverence is life, and that the welfare of a patient is the prime interest which is maintained through the development of the ethics of two American Medical Association.
Q: If I understand you correctly the ethical standpoint of the medical profession is, so to speak, codified in American, and the Hippocratic oath was simply taken over to express the reverence for human life and the principle that the patient who is under the doctor's care should not be done any injury by the doctor, is that correct? So that it is not the Hippocratic Oath, but this codification of the professional medical ethics, according to the doctor in America, how to determine his behavior?
A: No, I said the original oath of Hippocrates is served as a basis upon which have been developed the details of medical practice as it is performed under modern conditions.
Q: Then Professor, I must read the Oath of Hippocrates to you in the classical version. You will see from this that the Oath of Hippocrates in the classical version really is not a codification of medical ethics, but is the contract of a pre-med student with this teacher, and that may incidentally in this Oath are a few ethical elements introduced. It reads as follows:
I swear by Apollo, the doctor, and by Asklepios and Hygicia and Panakeia, and by all time Gods and goddesses for whom I bear witness to the best of my ability and best of my judgment I take the following Oath and accept the following responsibility: I shall revere my teacher in this art as I revere my parents.
This is undoubtedly a point of view that the doctor does not demand today.
And if he is in need he shall partake of my goods, also his descendants shall do so. I shall regard him as my brother. I shall teach my brothers this art if they wish me to without payment and without any contract. All the pertinent science I shall give to my own sons as I shall give them to the sons of my master, and I shall give the same knowledge to the students in the same grade and stand under the medical law. However, to others I shall not give this knowledge.
Now, Doctor, I think you will agree on these versions of the Hippocrates Oath, that they are impertinent and out of line with that?
A: I do not agree with that interpretation, that part of the Hippocratic oath directs medical educators today to be careful and to exercise judgment regarding the intellectual ability and moral character of wen that are permitted to study medicine.
Q: Professor, this part of the oath does not concern the medical teacher, but the medical students who accepted these obligations vis-a-vis is master?
A: The oath continues:
The prescriptions to make life easy for the Patient I shall regard and I shall avoid doing what can harm or injure the patient.
A: Yes, that indicates a reverence for life, and that you should do nothing in the way of therapy which you know will harm the patient.
Q: It is precisely this part of the Hippocratic oath that is missing in the French version. From this it can be seen that the various conceptions of the doctors' medical ethics and what his obligations are differ from time to time vastly and that the Hippocratic oath contains nothing but general principles which as you can see from this letter of Hippocrates, which I am going to read to you, were not regarded even by Hippocrates himself in the way that they are regarded and held to be necessary today. In this letter to Hippocrates it says:
I am not justified in taking advantage of the richness of the Persians nor in treating barbarians who are enemies of the Greek people or freeing such barbarians from disease.
That is the fifth letter from Hippocrates and you have already said that you consider that such an attitude cannot be brought into or is constant with the basic principles of medical ethics, is that so?
A: Yes, that is not coincident with my principles of the medical ethics, as in reverence for life, whether that life be friend or foe, when it comes to treating their disease and sickness.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you will read into the record the title of the book, the author, and. the page upon which that quotation is read from.
DR. FLEMING: This is the "Hippocrates Fibel", excerpts from Hippocrates Works, editor Dr. Richard Kapferer, Munich and Bad Woerishofen, 1943, Hippocrates Publishing Company, Marquardt and Co., Stuttgart.
THE WITNESS: I might add that I doubt whether Hippocrates wrote that letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give the page of the volume on which that letter may be found, counsel?
DR. FLEMING: Page 307; the title in German is "Hippocrates Fibel".
I have no further questions, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.