1947-06-16, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. ANDREW IVY — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Professor, if I understood your attitude to Berkatit correctly — namely, as you stated it in the direct examination, you expressed the view at the time that due to the pleasant taste which Berkatit lends to sea water, it would lead the shipwrecked to drink large amounts of sea water, as, for example, occurred with experimental subject number 2. Did I understand you correctly in that respect?

A: Yes, I believe there is a tendency in that direction.

Q: And is this correct too, Professor? Did I understand your statement correctly that your experimental subject number 3— a physician who, during three days, drank only about 800 CC of sea water—did not have any complaints due to that?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Now you certainly know, Professor, you have already mentioned this with Beiglboeck, that not only the excessive loss of water but also the loss of salt, that is, of sodium chloride, can bring with it damaging results. Did I understand you correctly in that respect too? I mean, that the loss of sodium chloride occasioned by thirsting is damaging?

A: No, I think that you must have misunderstood some statement that I made.

Q: Professor—

A: If one loses salt as the result of perspiration, then that loss of salt is deleterious.

Q: I thought, Professor, it was pointed out that through the loss in the blood, the so-called hypochlorenia — that is, the sodium chloride loss in the blood is important, and that therefore there can be some damaging results.

A: That only occurs with excessive sweating.

Q: But one thing must be correct, Professor. You have already stated today that a number of scientists, among them Ledell, were of the opinion that the administration of small amounts of sea water is better than pure thirsting.

A: Yes, because they would gain a little water, perhaps 100 CC, and still would be able to excrete that salt in the urine that would otherwise be formed and excreted.

Q: Now, Professor Ivy, I want to speak with you about the testimony of the expert, Professor Vollhardt. You have read his testimony, and therefore you will admit that he too stated that the drinking of small amounts of sea water is to be preferred to absolute thirsting; is that correct?

A: Yes, that is my recollection.

Q: Therefore, Professor, it is correct that the drinking of large amounts of sea water is harmful. On the contrary, however, the drinking of small amounts is not harmful; yes, according to the opinion of some scientists, is even to be preferred to thirsting. Now, in your statements you thought that you saw a contradiction in the statements made by Professor Vollhardt. I don't quite understand what this contradiction was supposed to be; perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify this contradiction somewhat further.

A: I should have to refer to the record.

MR. HARDY: The two points that defense counsel referred to, Your Honor, I have typewritten here, but I don't have the record. If he wants me to read the two points to him to aid in examining Dr. Ivy, I will point out the page numbers. Dr. Ivy has the record before him and he can refer to it if necessary. The first one is on page 8483, the language is the middle of the page in the Vollhardt testimony, beginning with the word "however". The next is at the bottom of the next page, page 8484, wherein Vollhardt testifies that drinking sea water with Berkatit would have serious consequences after six days. I believe those were the two pages you referred to.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: On those two places I could find no contradiction, Professor. Perhaps you could clarify the contradiction which you think you find in these two pages.

A: On Page 8384 the sentence reads:

However the experiments did not give a definite supportive evidence of that but they did have an important result, not only the obvious result, namely that the Schaefer water was superior to anything else, but also the observation that the kidneys can nevertheless concentrate so astonishingly well up to the concentration of sea water that in the future one could give the advice that in cases of sea distress instead of being completely thirsty, one could rather drink 500cc. of sea water and in that manner increase the salt contents of the blood but would not have to be afraid of dehydradion quite so quickly.

On Page 8484 the answer at the bottom of the page. First the question:

And you went on to say, Professor, that the "admonition" of water with Berkatit which is equal to sea water would have done serious injury in practice, and provided it went on over six days would lead to death?

And the answer is:

It would have serious consequences after going on for over six days and would most certainly lead to death after —

which was the end of the sentence. Now on page 8484, it is indicated that the consumption of sea water could, on going over six days, lead certainly to death, whereas on Page 8483 it states that one could give the advice that in cases of sea distress, instead of being completely thirsty, one could rather drink 500cc.

of sea water and would not have to be afraid of dehydration quite so quickly. If Prof. Vollhardt had used 100 or 200 cc. of sea water, then in my opinion there would have been no contradiction. The contradiction is in the fact that the record shows 500cc.

Q: Professor, you thus are of the opinion that the contradiction is the amount of the sea water consumed which Prof. Vollhardt suggested?

A: Yes.

Q: Well now, in my opinion it is as follows: If a man who is at sea distress drinks pure sea water that has not been treated in any way, he will— and you will probably confirm this — because of the disagreeable taste alone will not drink large amounts. On the other hand, if he consumes water that has been treated with Berkatit, which has a good taste, the danger exists that he will consume larger amounts and increasing amounts and that this is the danger of Berkatit. Am I right in that respect?

A: I did not get that impression from reading that.

MR. HARDY: May it please, Your Honor, may I ask defense counsel if he intends to imply that the Vollhardt testimony is substantially as he stated it here or just what is the purpose of his question? Is it his own opinion, the opinion of his client, or does he wish Dr. Ivy to assume that opinion?

THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel asking Dr. Ivy his opinion on that matter?

DR. TIPP: If I may say by way of supplement, I asked Dr. Ivy whether this was the opinion which Prof. Vollhardt represented here, and whether it is the same opinion that the expert has, because the contradiction which Prof. Ivy found in Prof. Vollhardt's testimony I cannot find, for the very reason I have just stated.

A: I can't confirm the interpretation of the attorney. The contradiction in the two statements, insofar as my rereading of the words and sentences on the two pages, indicate that the contradiction is one in regard to the amount of sea water.

I did not gain the idea from reading this that treating the water with Berkatit might cause them to drink more of it — which, however, is the definite possibility, in my opinion, I have already testified to that.

Q: Well, now Prof. I want to leave that subject, and I again want to go back to the discussion of some documents. May I ask you to turn to Prosecution Document Book No. 3 in regard to sea water experiments, the document book about sea water, and to look at document NO 171, exhibit 132. I believe it is page 10 in the English document book, NO 171. It is entitled, Notes about the discussion making sea water potable, on 20 May 1944. It has been pointed out to me it is document 177. I beg your pardon. It is on page 11 in the English Document Book, minutes of the two meetings.

A: I have it.

Q: All right. The document reads and I quote:

At this meeting Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the clinical experiments conducted by Col. Dr. von Sirany and came to the final conclusion that he did not consider them as being unobjectionable and conclusive enough for final decision. The chief of the medical service is convinced that if the Berka method is used, damage to health has to be expected not later than six days after taking Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent damage to health and according to the opinion of Dr. Schaefer will result in death after not later than 12 days.

In order to simplify matters I want to assume that Dr. Becker-Freyseng really made this report, actually in the same way as it is reported here. Can you tell me, Professor about which experiments they are speaking in this quotation here?

A: I believe they are speaking about the experiments which later were done at Dachau, and I might say that I agree with the statement that you read.

Q: May I ask you, Professor, you say "I believe". I would like to ask you what you base your belief on in reference to this quotation which I just read.

As far as I can see, this entire quotation does not speak about any experiments at Dachau. It begins:

At this meeting Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the clinical experiments conducted by Col. D. von Sirany.

Perhaps the "Dr. von Sirany" does not mean anything to you in this connection, or do you know what experiments are meant here in saying the experiments of Dr. von Sirany?

A: According to my other reading, he is supposed to have done some experiments with Berka water.

Q: Yes, and the experiments were conducted at the air force hospital in Vienna, at the Luftwaffe hospital in Vienna. Therefore I don't know from what you want to conclude that they were talking about the experiments at Dachau here. Would you please tell me why?

A: According to the impression that I have gained from reading the documents in sequence and the record, this was a preliminary discussion to the experiments at Dachau.

Q: Excuse me professor, but I would like to point out to you the following sentence: First, it is a description of the external symptoms. Then it says, and I quote again:

As a result of the preliminary discussion it was agreed to arrange new series of experiments of short duration.

Does that not indicate that the preceding sentences refer to the preliminary discussions and that this preliminary discussion had as its subjects the experiments in Vienna? Otherwise the formulation "as a result of the preliminary discussion it was agreed to arrange new experiments of short duration," would not be comprehensible.

A: I obtain the idea that this referred to the experiments of Dr. Sirany and that new experiments were to be planned because his experiments were objectionable.

Q: Yes, to that extent, I agree with you. This description refers to Sirany's experiments and perhaps can you also confirm the following opinion which, I have, namely that the damage to the health which could be expected refers not to the experiments, but to the introduction of Berkatit into practice, which was feared.

A: I believe that refers to the damage to health which is to be expected to occur in the case there berkatit is used to treat seawater.

Q: Yes. Thus, this damage will result if berkatit would be introduced as a preparation in the practical sea rescue service?

A: Yes.

Q: All right. Now, Professor Ivy, another question in regard to this same document. After the statements by Mr. Hardy to you, you made a statement regarding No. 2 of this document. May I quote to you briefly?

In addition to these experiments which were supposed to last six days, a further experiment is supposed to be carried on as follows: No. 2, persons nourished with seawater and berkatit, and as dict also the prescribed emergency sea rations. Duration of experiments: 12 days. Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service, permanent injuries to health or the death of the experimental subjects have to be expected, only such persons should be used as experimental subjects as will be put at disposal by the Reichsfuehrer-SS.

In answer to the question of the prosecutor in regard, to this, you stated that you could explain this sequence of the experiments only by saying that the survival time was supposed to be found out by means of these experiments. Now may I ask you what you mean by "survival time" in this context?

A: By that I mean the length of time that one might survive if they used berka water or seawater treated with berkatit. I said that because on Page 12 of the English record, it is stated that:

the Chief of the Medical Service is convinced that if the Berka Method is used, damage to health has to be expected not later than six days after taking berkatit; which damage will result in permanent injuries to health.

And according to the opinion of NCO, Dr. Schaefer,

the final result in death, not later than 12 days.

I think that is sound advice — physiological advice — bio-chemical advice; and then here the experiment was set up for the duration, for 12 days, in spite of the warning that permanent damage or death might result if you took it longer than six days.

Q: Professor, can you tell me whether in the entire program of experiments — you have the documents in front of you — in this entire sequence of experiments, did you find anywhere any reason for thinking that anybody was interested in finding out the survival time?

A: No, only with the exception of the implications of those two statements.

Q: All right, Professor, may I now ask you also, is the only important factor in the determination of the survival time — if we shall call it that — is that the time face or or are there not also other factors which have to be considered; in other words, is only the time element important, for how long the experimental subject drinks berkatit water, but is it not also important how much the person drinks on each single day?

A: Yes, that is correct; and also the environmental conditions are important, and the conditions of the subject at the beginning of the experiment.

Q: Do you now think in this entire program which is laid down here and as the experiments were carried out, do you find anything about a statement that an amount if seawater was administered or was supposed to be administered which from the very beginning would bring about fatal consequence?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Thus you are saying that the concept of survival time can be seen only from this document, but that the rest of the program and the actual execution are contrary to the planning of such an experiment as is described here, apparently?

A: Yes, the longest that 1,000 cc of seawater was supposed to have been given at the Dachau experiments was either 9½ days or 10½ days.

Q: Now let us go to another subject, Professor Ivy. You said to my colleague, Dr. Sauter, that you wrote to the Public Service Office in order to obtain conscientious objectors as experimental subjects. Am I remembering that correctly, Professor Ivy?

A: Yes. That is correct.

Q: Would you please now be so kind as to tell us again what points you wrote down in this letter. Perhaps as a preliminary question, I want to ask why did you, in order to obtain experimental subjects, address yourself particularly to this office?

A: This office was a division of the Selective Service which had under its supervision conscientious objectors.

Q: Thus if I understand you correctly, it was the office which could give the permission first, basically, for the execution of these experiments?

A: No, they would determine whether or not the conscientious objectors could be used as experimental subjects for the experiment.

Q: Yes. In other words, this office first found out whether such experimental subjects were available?

A: That is correct.

Q: Yes. Then you said further, if I remember correctly, that in this letter you describe the problem that was concerned and that you said you told them why the experiments were to be executed. I believe that is correct too, is it not?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Furthermore, you requested a definite number of experimental subjects and for a definite period and also for a definite place, if I am not mistaken, is that correct too?

A: Yes.

Q: I assume that you told this office too that you or one of your assistants or another physician would supervise the experiment and that the office could be at ease and could be sure that the experiment would be carried out by qualified scientists, is that correct too?

A: Yes, that is correct; as a matter of fact, the project or program of experimentation was passed on by the appropriate committee of the National Research Council.

Q: Professor, may I then ask you to look in the sea water experiment book, at the Prosecution Document NO-185, Prosecution Exhibit 134. It is on Page 18 in the English Document Book. It is a letter of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to the Reich Minister of the Interior, of the 7th of June 1944. The question of the voluntary nature of the experimental subjects which is discussed in the first sentence of this document, I ask you not to consider at the moment. I only ask you to look at the rest of the sentences, and then to tell me whether this document does not contain the same points essentially as you put down in your letter to the Selective Service?

A: I might say that our application was much more extensive, much more in detail than this, and that the scientific value of the experiment — the way the experiment was to be designed and conducted — was also approved by the appropriate committee of the National Research Council.

Q: But essentially you will admit, Professor, that this document contains the same points which you just described to us. The first sentences describe the problem: the two methods which are to be decided upon. The next paragraph tells why the experiments are necessary. The next paragraph requests the experimental subjects, and states where the experiments are to take place. On the second page, Dr. Beiglboeck is mentioned as the directing physician. Finally, there is the usual closing-statement, which was contained also in your letter. I am here not concerned with details, Professor Ivy, but only with the fact that you probably have to admit that essentially this letter states the same thing that you too stated in your application with the corresponding differences, of course.

A: Yes, but then there is no scientist involved in this exchange of correspondence. It's an administrative officer to an administrative officer.

Q: Certainly, Professor, but it is important to me only to clarify that this is the letter from an administrative office with scientific assistants, to be sure, which applies to another administrative office, which first had to give on principle the permission that experimental subjects could be put at their disposal at all.

MR. HARDY: So that Dr. Ivy may get the full significance of this, I suggest that Defense Counsel bring home the knowledge of the balance of the letter written by Becker-Freyseng for the signature of Schroeder.

THE PRESIDENT: His testimony was to that effect, Counsel.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. I believe we agreed more or less, Professor. If I understood you correctly, you criticized in this letter only the fact that it does not contain the necessary scientific specifications. In regard to this, I may perhaps tell you from the testimony of Prof. Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng that this letter is only a summary of the discussions which had already taken place between Prof. Schroeder and the competent physicians who were working on this, the Reich Physician of the SS and Police, so that the scientific subjects had been clarified already in advance, in detail, and this letter was only a formal matter and only had to contain the scientific question quite briefly. Now, a further question, Professor Ivy. When you had made your application for those performing public service, what did you do next? Perhaps I may say in advance that probably you received a notification to the effect that you were permitted to carry out the experiment at such and such a place; is that correct?

A: Yes, and then we received notification regarding the place that the conscientious objectors would come from, and approximately their time of arrival at the place where the experiment was going to be performed.

Q: Yes. Professor, did you carry out those experiments yourself, under your own guidance and direction?

A: Yes, I was present while these experiments were going on. I made some of the clinical examinations myself, and checked over sometimes the daily records, and always the weekly records.

Q: Would you have had misgivings, Professor, if you had not carried out the experiments personally, but had let another physician whom you knew as a good scientist carry out the experiments?

A: That is possible; but since I was the sponsor, or the so-called responsible investigator, I could not delegate that responsibility to somebody else.

Q: Certainly, Professor, since you were concerned with your own research, may I now ask you, Professor, how in general — I am not talking about your experiment, but about others — how was this done in each case in experiments which you applied for but which you didn't execute yourself? How was it ascertained in each case whether the experimental subjects were volunteers? Did you undertake this examination yourself in each case, or did you leave the responsibility for that to the executing physician or to the office which referred the experimental subjects to you?

A: No. The subjects had to be volunteers, otherwise, they would never go to the place where the experiment was going to be done. The fact that they left the camp for conscientious objectors and went to the laboratory was prima facie evidence that they were volunteers.

Q: So they didn't have to be examined as individuals. Now, the last subject, Professor. If I understood you correctly, you said in the discussion of malaria experiments that such experiments on prisoners or CO's were supposed to be for the good of the community; is that correct?

A: Well now, malaria experiments were not done on conscientious objectors to my knowledge; they were done on prisoners in the penitentiary.

Q: Yes, prisoners. And the result of these experiments, if I understood you correctly, was supposed to serve humanity. In other words, to express it differently, as Governor Green said according to your testimony, the State of Illinois carried out these experiments in order to help the United States win the war; is that correct?

A: Yes. In the case of the prisoners, they were motivated in order to help people sick with malaria, and in their comments they frequently referred to soldiers, or friends in the army.

In the case of the conscientious objectors, their objective was to contribute to knowledge, knowledge for the prevention or alleviation of human suffering.

Q: Thus, you agree with me, Professor, with the statement I can make, that the experiments aimed at helping the winning of the war in these special sectors of medical research.

A: That was particularly true of the malaria experiments. It was not true of our minimum vitamin requirement experiments. There we had in mind rehabilitation of the stricken European areas. We wanted to know what food was best in relation to vitamin content, to supply people in war stricken areas, to keep them in good health.

THE PRESIDENT: I ask the prosecution if he has any redirect examination of this witness.

MR. HARDY: Yes, I have, but I think I can cover it in a half hour. He may continue until 4:30. I think I can finish up between 4:30 and 5:00.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any other Defense Counsel desire to ask questions of this witness? Dr. Tipp has asked for an hour, and he has had eighty minutes or more.

DR. WEISSGERBER (Attorney for Defendant Sievers): I did not have the intention to put any questions to the witness, but the result of the examination, today causes me to ask three brief questions, and answering them will probably take a very short time only.

THE PRESIDENT: Will ten minutes be sufficient?

DR. WEISSGERBER: Yes, Your Honor; that will be enough.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Tipp may continue for ten minutes.

DR. WEISSGERBER: Thank you very much.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Professor Ivy, thus you recognize that necessities conditioned by the war were a basis for experiments, do you not?

A: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I cannot see, Counsel, that these questions of cross examination are particularly pertinent to the direct examination or to the issues at present here.

DR. TIPP: If I may reply to this, Your Honor, briefly. The question of the experiments was raised, discussed repeatedly, and a number of my colleagues tried to point out that the experiments in part, or for the most part, were undertaken because of the necessities caused by the war-time conditions. This point of view has so far not been recognized by the Prosecution, and I believe that the answer of the expert may clarify this matter considerably.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that situation. I don't know that Dr. Ivy is an expert who can testify on that subject. I think if you have no further pertinent questions, we might turn the cross-examination over to Dr. Weissgerber.

BY DR. TIPP: If your honors please, I have only one more question, since my time has been, limited by the Tribunal. My question is the following: As you said, the voluntary nature of the experimental subject is the first basis for the admissibility of experiments on human beings altogether. To that extent I understood you correctly, did I not?

A: Yes, I think that should come first in the list of requirements.

Q: You stated today regarding the prerequisites for voluntary experiments on persons condemned to death that they are admissible from the ethical point of view, experiments of a nature that the condemned were given a medical preparation which might have fatal consequences — Prof. Rose started this discussion: A volunteer was administered poison in this case. Is not such an experiment, however in contradiction to the following sentence from out of Hippocrates; "I shall give no human being lethal poison, even if he asks me for it."

A: That, I believe refers to the function of the physician as a therapist, not an experimentalist, and the part that refers to the Oath of Hippocrates is that he must have respect for life and the human rights of his experimental patient.

Q: Thus, you believe that you have to differentiate between the physician as a therapist, that is the curing physician, and the physician as a research worker; and thus you admit that in each of these functions different laws, different paragraphs of the Oath of Hippocrates apply.

A: Yes, I obviously do.

DR. TIPP: Thank you very much. And in that case I have no further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY DR. WEISSGERBER (Attorney for Defendant Sievers):

Q: Professor, may I ask you to refer to Document Book II of the Prosecution, that is the document book with Document No. 402, Exhibit 66. It is page 88 in the German, and page 82 in the English Document Book; Exhibit 66. Professor Ivy, I now assume the case that a layman, a non-physician, reads this report by Ruff, Rascher, and Romberg; that he studies it thoroughly, or has the contents of this report explained to him thoroughly, very carefully. Are you of the opinion that this man, who is not a physician, can gather from this report that the experiments that were conducted are not in agreement with the medical professional ethics.

MR. HARDY: May I ask the Defense Counsel refer to a particular report.

THE PRESIDENT: I understood Counsel to identify the document to which he referred.

MR. HARDY: I am sorry, I did not understand what report was indicated.

THE PRESIDENT: Will Counsel identify the report, the document again

DR. WEISSGERBER: It is Document NO-492, Prosecution Exhibit 66. Professor, shall I repeat my question or would you like to answer it right now?

A: You are referring to Document 402, I believe, of the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher report?

Q: Yes.

A: No, he would not, but when he read the description on pages 88, 89, and on the top of 90 of the behavior of the patient subjected to slow descent from high altitude, he might be considerably shocked with the symptoms described and he might inquire whether such an experiment were necessary.

Q: If such a man, who is not a physician, now, is assured by the competent authorities that the experimental subjects are volunteers, does this man, who is not a physician, have cause to think in that way?

A: Yes, he still can be rather upset at the description of those experiments, being a lay person.

Q: Certainly, but do these thoughts of his own force the layman now to draw the conclusion that, seen from the point of view of medical professional ethics, these experiments were not admissible?

A: Not necessarily.

Q: Now, Professor, would you please look at the last document in this volume -it is Document No. 1612-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 79; that is on page 122. May I assume, Professor, that you have already read this document before?

A: I have glanced at it but I have not read it carefully.

Q: It is concerned with Research orders which Himmler gave directly to Dr. Rascher, that is, in December 1942. Can a layman who sees such a letter gather from it that the execution of these experiments, for reasons of medical professional ethics, is not admissible?

A: Certainly not from this document.

Q: Would you please repeat the answer?

A: Certainly not from what this document says.

DR. WEISSGERBER: All right. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution may re-directly examine the witness.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Professor Ivy, in your experiments in the field, of explosive decompression conducted at 47,500 feet were they conducted in a manner similar to the experiments outlined in the Ruff-Rascher-Romberg report, which is Document NO-402 in Prosecution Document Book No. 3?

A: No.

Q: What is the great discrepancy between the Ruff experiments and your experiments?

A: In the Ruff experiments the subject was suddenly lifted to an altitude of 49,000 or 50,000 feet, and from that point he descended slowly, simulating the descent that would occur with the parachute open, the subjects being exposed to oxygen lack from that time until they reached an altitude, we shall say, roughly of 18,000 to 20,000 feet. In the experiments that we performed the subject was explosively decompressed to 40,000 or 47,000 feet, where he remained breathing oxygen at the surrounding pressure at 40,000, or with additional pressure or pressure breathing at the altitude of 47,500 feet.

Q: Why didn't you find it necessary to extend your experiments to that phase as contained in the Ruff experiments?

A: Because we felt that on the basis of calculations we could determine the amount of oxygen to place in the bail-out bottle on the flyer's pants leg that would take him from an altitude of 40,000 or 47,500 feet down to a safe level where he would no longer need a supplementary supply of oxygen.

Q: Professor Ivy, concerning the questions put to you by defense counsel as to the ability of a layman to analyze these various reports of the experiments, isn't it true that if a layman read the Rascher reports that the layman might be even more severely shocked by them than a physician?

A: I should say no to that question because there are portions of the Rascher report that will shock the physician just as much as the lay man, and the physicians of the United States Army and Navy who first came into Germany and learned and read of the experiments which had been done on human beings, without their consent, I assure you were shocked just as much as laymen would be.

Q: During the course of your examination by the defendant Ruff, discussion of anoxia took place and you stated, I believe, that a person may be exposed to anoxia as a result of slow descent but that the symptoms may not develop until a period of 5 or 10 days had passed. Is that correct?

A: No. I said that it is possible for subjects to be exposed to a period of anoxia and then recover therefrom and have a period of no symptoms for a period of 5 to 10 days and then develop symptoms of neurological damage.

Q: Well, is it possible that those symptoms sometimes did not manifest themselves until months or years after the lesion of the basal ganglia inflicted by the basal action episode?

A: No.

Q: You don't know of any work along those lines, as to whether or not this anoxia condition would develop or be manifested months or years later?

A: No. If they did not appear within two weeks, there is no evidence indicating that they may occur later with which I am familiar.

Q: Now, Doctor concerning your testimony regarding the conscientious objectors, I have a few points which may tend to clarify this situation in the minds of defense counsel. Would you tell us how a person is classified as a conscientious objector?

A: Well, first everyone within a certain age group in the United States had to register.

Q: Register for the draft?

A: For the draft or selective service.

Q: That is, conscription into the United States armed forces?

A: Yes. Then at some time later the actual draft occurred. The conscientious objector could, announce that he was a conscientious objector to serving in battle or serving with the military organization at the time of registration or at the time of induction or being drafted.

Q: And after he registered his objections to participating in any manner in the army, was he then allowed to return to his home, or was he asked to cooperate in matters which did not involve things of a military nature?

A: No, he was assigned to the Civilian Public Service Agency and asked if he wanted to cooperate by rendering public service.

Q: And that public service was work as orderly in a hospital and work in various libraries, perhaps, and other public institutions?

A: Yes, or forest fire prevention, and cleaning up the woods.

Q: Was this man, this conscientious objector, in confinement?

A: They were only placed under confinement when they would not cooperate in any way.

Q: Was there a national committee to take care of the interests of the objectors?

A: Yes, as a general rule the conscientious objectors were supervised by a civilian religious group, such as the Quakers or the Mennonites.

Q: Was the conscientious objector under any duty to volunteer for medical experiments?

A: None whatsoever.

Q: However, he was under obligation to work in various libraries or forest fire prevention, etc., if requested to by the committee?

A: Yes, it was necessary for him to render some sort of public service.

Q: Then you determined that you needed experimental subjects. How did it happen that you decided that conscientious objectors might be made available to you?

A: As I recall, the National research Council, in view of the fact that the medical students and dental students were mustered into the army and could no longer serve as subjects in experiments in university and medical school laboratories, took the matter up with the Director of the Civilian Public Service, who then decided that the conscientious objectors might be allowed to volunteer for such work in connection with medical schools and research institutes.

Q: And by that token you were permitted to approach conscientious objectors to ask them whether or not they would volunteer for medical experiments?

A: I or the investigator did not approach the conscientious objectors directly. We requested that ascertain number of volunteers be allowed or sent to us through the director of the Civilian Public Service agency.

Q: And those conscientious objectors were sent to your university laboratories?

A: Yes; that is correct.

Q: While they were at your laboratory were they living in the dormitories at the university?

A: Yes, in the dormitories or in the hospitals.

Q: Were they under any surveillance at all?

A: One person in the group was appointed as a leader, supervisor of the group, and it was his duty to see that the men carried out their instructions properly and on time.

Q: Was it possible for any one of those objectors to receive leave or to have weekend liberty?

A: It was not in most experiments.

Q: Well, assume for the moment that you were not going to use the experimental subject for a period of two or three weeks. Was he in such a position that he could not go on leave or go to the city or was he supposed to remain at your university at all times?

A: No, he could leave for certain periods of time, varying in length from a few hours to a few days, depending upon the nature of the experiment. If it were a dietary experiment, then he had to eat at the diet table all the time.

Q: Then he actually had freedom of locomotion, in contradistinction to a prisoner in an institution or penitentiary?

A: Yes.

MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, your Honor.

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q: Dr. Ivy, is it or is it not your opinion that the experiments in slow descent from an elevation of 47,500 feet which were carried out by the defendants Ruff and Romberg were likely to cause physically injury to the experimental subjects?

A: I said it was possible that this might injure the learning mechanism in the brain but otherwise there was no reason to believe it would cause physical injury.

Q: I didn't remember just what your answer for that was.

A: And it was for that reason I said I should be reluctant to do such experiments on myself or those subjects and would try to find some other way to answer the question.

MR. HARDY: The examination of Dr. Ivy is finished, your Honor. I might inquire how long Dr. Steinbauer will continue with his redirect examination of the defendant Beiglboeck.

THE PRESIDENT: I would ask Dr. Steinbauer how long he thinks the further examination of the defendant Beiglboeck will require.

DR. STEINBAUER: May it please the Tribunal, I shall need about an hour and I request that I may continue the case tomorrow. I shall then hurry with Professor Beiglboeck, and I agree to it that Tschofenik can be examined then because he has to return. I only want to have an opportunity to examine Dr. Beiglboeck because I did not know Tschofenik was here. Then immediately afterwards, perhaps in the afternoon, I could also examine the two other witnesses who are here so that the examination of witnesses can be concluded. I think the prosecution produced some other witnesses for the cross-examination.

MR. HARDY: That is agreeable with me. The other witnesses we have, I haven't been able to talk to yet and I don't know just when they will be able to take the witness stand. However, the witness Tschofenik will be availble tomorrow and as stated by defense counsel, he can be called after the case of the defendant Beiglboeck is completed.

It is agreeable with prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.