A I agree with this concept.
Q I have no further questions.
DR. WEISSGERBER for Defendant Sievers.
BY DR. WEISGERBER.
Q Witness, this morning you told us that you saw the Defendant Sievers one single time and that you spoke to him then; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you know his official position?
A No, I did not know his official position.
Q Did you know that an institute for military science and research was affiliated to the office of Ahnenerbe?
A No, I did not know that.
Q When talking to Sievers that one tune, did Sievers then tell you that he had an order to speak to you about the Lost Research work of Professor Hirt?
A No, he told me that he had the order to give me this final report about the Lost work of Professor Hirt and he had to do that by order of Himmler, but he did not say he had the order to discuss the contents of these matters.
Q At that time was any mention made about any other experiments?
A No, we did not discuss experiments at all. Sievers merely handed this report to me as the final report of Professor Hirt regarding Lost treatment; as such there was no further connection.
Q You knew that Sievers was not a physician?
A I had to assume that immediately, otherwise ho would have approached me in a different manner; I did not know him and I did not have any conception whatever where he came from; what agency he came from and I did not ask him about it.
Q You, therefore, had no reason whatsoever to discuss any experiments with him?
A No, I did not speak to him about that.
Q Did you know Professor Hirt?
A No, at that time I did not know Professor Hirt?
Q But later you became acquainted with the official position of Professor Hirt?
A Yes, I was told he worked at Strassburg University.
Q This morning you spoke about the military necessity of the institution of a skeleton collection and you denied that necessity; would such a necessity be confirmed under different points of view?
A From the point of view of a scientific interest it would be correct if skeleton collections were made. I know of very extensive collections which are affiliated with every anatomical institute. In particular, I know of a large collection at the Museum in Berlin, These arc really purely scientific interests, but certainly not military interests.
Q Could a layman, a man who is not a physician, make the decisive judgment about the necessity of such a collection?
A I cannot answer that question.
Q I have no further questions.
BY DR. FRITZ: (Defense Counsel for Defendant Rose) Q witness, did you know the defendant Rose before the 8th of May 1945, that is, before the collapse,
A Yes, I spoke to him once. I met him once, yes.
Q Did you ever have any other official connections with the defendant Rose as are mentioned in his affidavit of September 1946 which is Document 872, Exhibit 408?
A I only had two dealings with Rose, and since I don't know what document you are speaking of I think that we are there concerned with malaria treatment of paralytical questions, and then again there were nourishment questions concerning the same persons. 1 think these are questions where I dealt with Professor Rose.
Q Did you at any time speak to him about any points as were mentioned by the prosecution before May 1945?
A No.
Q Did you have any correspondence with him or did you deal with him in any other form directly or indirectly?
A No, neither directly or indirectly, nor by way of writing.
Q Did you ever see the defendant Rose as a participant in a discussion where the points were discussed which are here under indictment or where reports were made on those points?
A In order to answer this question, one would have to assume a common participation in such meetings, but I cannot remember any one occasion where I saw him or spoke to him. I said this morning what meetings I attended. If Professor Rose also attended these meetings it is certainly possible that I saw him, but certainly we did not establish any contact or speak to one another.
Q Witness, you were just speaking about meetings. I meant conferences, discussion. Meetings usually mean to describe larger congresses.
A I had no discussions whatsoever where Rose was present or where I met him. I cannot remember that.
DR. FRITZ: Thank You. Mr. President, I have no further questions.
BY DR. KAUFMANN: (Defense Counsel for Defendant Rudolf Brandt)
Q Dr. Brandt, I have one single question to put to you. The prosecution designates the defendant Rudolf Brandt as the so-called special referent of Himmler. Would you agree with me if I say that Rudolf Brandt was everything but a counselor of Himmler in matters which are the subject of this trial?
A That is my conviction. It is my conviction that first Himmler did not accept any advice in his questions on principle because had this been the case, such matters would not have been dealt with by him, and I am quite sure that Rudolf Brandt in particular would not have been in a position to give any advice to him. He would not have tolerated it.
DR. KAUFMANN: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. SAUTER: (Defense counsel for Defendant Blome)
Q Dr. Brandt, you may perhaps remember that the prosecution in their material Submitted a file by Professor Klieve with reference to a meeting of the so-called Blitzableiter Committee. This so-called Blitzableiter Committee was known as the agency in the Wehrmacht which dealt with the preparation of the defense of biological warfare. In this file about the meeting of this Blitzbleiter Committee Professor Klieve writes and says that the defendant Dr. Blome made utterances during that meeting which were to the effect that the Blitzableiter Committee was working much too slowly; that it had to be dissolved. He said that Blome would have to turn to Brandt; that is, your, or to Goering. I don't know whether this man, Dr. Klieve, will appear as a witness. I asked for him, and I therefore want to ask you Dr. Brandt, at any time did defendant Dr. Blome turn to you in this matter? Did he make any proposals to you? Please reply.
A I heard this work, Blitzableiter, for the first time through this document Klieve. I did not know that before. kith reference to such a proposal Blome certainly did not turn to me as can be seen from this Klieve document, orally nor by writing. I had no conversation or correspondence with him at all, and he never approached me with reference to this problem, Blitza-bleiter.
Q Dr. Brandt, I have a further question, referring to a different chap ter.
This morning during your examination you repeatedly spoke about differences which you yourself had with the Reich physicians' leader, Dr. Conti, and you also spoke of differences which the defendant Dr. Blome had with the same Dr. Conti. Dr. Blome was the deputy of Dr. Conti, and I am interested to know whether you can give us any more information as to what kind of differences existed between Dr. Blome and Dr. Conti, and to what these differences referred?
A Without going into details, I would like to describe them as follows: whenever physicians are represented as a community Dr. Blome was of the opinion that only professional reasons must be decisive for the manner in which they are represented, but that it would not be correct to involve a physician in political questions and put him into a political harness, thinking that one could further medicine by that.
In this connection whenever I got into contact with Dr. Blome I had many discussions with him. At these occasions it was clearly mentioned that in addition to the personality of Conti himself, which brought difficulties of its own with it, these mentioned material reasons were decisive.
Q In this connection, Dr. Brandt, I should like to put the following question to you: During these conversations which were carried on by Dr. Blome with you, did he say anything about wanting, under all circumstances, to take out physicians from Party matters and that for this reason he desired to separate the union of personnel which existed between the Reich Chamber of Physicians on one side, and the Main Department for Public Health on the ether and he wanted to do that for the reason that this so-called public health office was an express Party institution?
A The situation was as you described it, yes, exactly. Even in December 1944 we discussed this question. I think it was even after the decree which was mentioned this morning, the decree number 2 where the Army Medical Chief was separated.
Q Dr. Brandt, do you remember anything about the following: With reference to these conversations which you had with Dr. Blome did he complain to you that Dr. Conti, the Reich physicians' leader, kept many things away from him, Dr. Blome, so that Dr. Blome was not informed about important matters in the Reich Chamber of Physicians and matters which concerned the leadership of the medical profession?
My question is whether he told you that or whether he complained to you about it?
A He did that and the personality of Conti was always mentioned, who was a distrusting person, a difficult person to cope with, who concentrated everything to himself personally, everything that happened in his office, so that not one collaborator of his could receive any insight in the activity which he himself exercised.
Q witness, one further question. Do you know that this Dr. Conti, apart from other offices, had two main positions? Which were these positions?
A These were the two positions. One was a Party position, Reich Health Leader, and the other, Under Secretary of State of the Ministry of the Interior.
Q That is Reich Health Leader; is that identical with the Deputy Reich Physicians' Leader?
A The position was that, as far as personnel goes, he was the physicians' leader, and at the same time, Reich Health Leader. In addition, in the state sector he was Under Secretary of State of the Ministry of the the Interior. Dr. Blome was his representative in his capacity as physician's leader; that is, merely partly a representative of Conti's personality, not on the state sector.
Q The latter is very important to me, On the basis of your knowledge of questions of competence, you said that Conti in his capacity as State Secretary was not represented by Dr. Conti?
A No.
Q For that he had other collaborators?
A Yes, for that he had officials of the Ministry of the Interior who represented him.
Q In that connection, Dr. Brandt, I want to put the following questions to you: This morning you told us what position you yourself held within the euthanasia program. You naturally knew the jurisdiction and tasks of the participating agencies and persons. Did the defendant Dr. Blome exercise any function in this euthanasia program? Was he in any war participating in it?
A I did not meet him at all, and I heard nothing about that.
Q Witness, I am putting this question to you for the following reason. You remember that on the wall behind you there used to be a chart which was made according to the statements of the defendant Brack, and on this chart which I think you had, there is in the center a square for the State Secretary Conti in the Reich Ministry cf the Interior, and you, I am sure, will remember that to the right of this square there was a smaller square which said Dr. Blome. You remember that, don't you? You already explained that Dr. Blome had nothing to do with the euthanasia program and did not represent Dr. Conti when he acted in his capacity as Secretary of State. Low, is it your opinion that this chart which was made according to the statements of the defendant Brack, is wrong in respect to the square where Dr. Blome's name is mentioned?
A This square with reference to Dr. Blome is wrong, and Dr. Brack in his now chart already corrected that.
DR. SAUTER: In that case I have no further questions, Mr. President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is in anticipated that there will be any further cross examination by any of the defense counsel tomorrow morning?
DR. FROESCHMAN: (Counsel for defendant Brack) Mr. President, I have a number of questions which I want to put to the witness, Dr. Brandt, which will take some time.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, here is another paper that belongs in your custody.
The Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 tomorrow --
MR. McHANEY: If it please the Tribunal, I would like to ask that the Tribunal rule that the witness, Karl Brandt, be confined so that he may not be talked to by any of the defense counsel, including his own defense counsel, until he has completed his examination on the stand.
DR. SERVATIUS: I don't know whether I understood correctly. I certainly shall be able to speak to my client, or is that to be excluded?
MR. McHANEY: I think he has now taken the stand and is to be treated as any other witness, and I think it is proper that in the case of any ordinary witness appearing before this Tribunal that he not be talked to by either side during the course of his examination once that examination has begun.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. McHaney, does the Tribunal understand from your statements that during the course of prosecution when the witness had once taken the stand, that throughout the course of the examination no member of the prosecution or its representatives attempted to discuss any matter with him at any time during the course of the examination?
MR. McHANEY: Well, I think that has teen uniformly true, your Honor. However, I can't speak for everyone. However, in view of the Tribunal's position, or rather, the question just put, I will ask that when Karl Brandt goes under cross examination tomorrow, that his defense counsel not be per mitted to then confer with him; at least, I would like a ruling to that effect.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I-would be in complete agreement with this ruling. As soon as the witness is at the disposal of the prosecution I will not speak to him. However, before cross examination has started I must have the possibility to speak to my client.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that under the circumstances at this present time counsel for defendant Karl Brandt may speak to him until the defendant is turned over to the prosecution for cross examination, and after that time the witness should be under the rule to not talk to anyone until his cross examination by the prosecution is completed. I understand that counsel for the defendant, Karl Brandt, is in accordance with that principle?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The same principle will be followed with the other defendants when they take the stand.
The Tribunal is of the opinion, and I think the Tribunal's ruling was clear, that defendant Karl Brandt's own counsel and. no other counsel for any other defendant or anybody else, should consult with the defendant Karl Brandt during the course of this night. That's understood.
The Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 5 February 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of tie American Military Tribunal in the matter of the Unit ed States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now is session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be crier in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the Court Room.
THE PRESIDENT: Tie Secretary General will note for the record the fact that the defendants are all present in Court.
MARL BRANDT - Resumed EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Witness, yesterday in the last part of your discussion of the uethanasia program - I would like to address same questions to you in that connection, Do you know that in August, 1939, an oral order had already preceded the written decree by Hitler to Bouhler?
A. No, I do not know anything about that However, I consider it possible because otherwise this concrete order to Bouhler would not have been given. I assume tint perhaps Bouhler may have had a certain contact about the preparations which w ere taking place between Dr. Conti and Lammers which, at the time, were immediately discussed at Danzig in the middle of September.
Q. Yesterday you have already spoken of the exceptions -- the persons who were not allowed to fall under the euthanasia program - and in this connection you lave already mentioned the war invalids.
Have I understood you correctly that those war invalids were to be excepted from the euthanasia whose mental disease was in direct connection with on injury during the World War or World War II?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know anything about the fact that the defendant Brack, together with his collaborators, drafted the law?
A. I have only found cut about it at a later period of time. At the time I did net know anything at all about it.
Q. It should be of interest for the Tribunal tr knew the number of insane in Germany in 1939. Would you be able to give some information about that subject to the Tribunal?
A. I cannot give the exact number for the year of 1939 to you. In general we have no idea about the number of mentally diseased in the country. The number which I know had probably boon determined in the year 1934, but I cannot say that with certainty. The main contingent concerns people suffering from paralysis in all the phases of the disease. In this connection, of course, there wore not only the sick persons who had to be confined to an institution but altogether a number of patients who were subjected to general medical treatment. The number was estimated at approximately one million. The next biggest number of patients was that of schizophrenia which was located around six hundred thousand and that was out of a population of about sixty million. This schizophrenia, at the same the, represents the mental contingent for tho mental institutions and that was approximately two hundred thousant. For the number of beds available, that moans 70% to 80%. Of those cases of schizophrenia, approximately 20% could be cured. The remainder continued to be patients in mental institutions. The same number cf a proximately two hundred forty thousand patients is the number for epileptics and for the manic-depressive patients.
The statistics fer the Huntington Disease stands at about 60% against the others. However, altogether, the number of mentally insane and idiots was approximated at one million. Altogether there may have been three million mental cases.
Q. How many, in your opinion, of those cases were confined to institutions?
A. Of the three million, the number of two hundred fifty thousand occupied beds in institutions. That is, about six hundred thousand wore under constant medical care and one part of them, approximately two hundred fifty thousand, were confined in hospitals while the others were treated by a private physician.
Q. Do you have an insight into the fact of hew many people were included in the euthanasia program d scribed by you yesterday in the years 1939, 1940, 1941, until the end?
A. The number was computed from our statistics, one thousand -10 to 5 to 1, in which count is the number of persons who are healthy; ten cf those are under medical care, five arc under constand treatment in institutions, and one comes under the euthanasia program. That means that amongst one thousand healthy people there is one such case. That again is fugured from the population of sixty million - that is, approximately sixty thousand.
AQ. However you had no access to exact statistics?
A. As far as I know no statistics have been compiled.
Q. Now, one other question.
Who gave orders within the euthanasia program? Did you give then or did Bouhler give then there with respect to the physicians?
A. Yesterday, I stated ti t the 3-4 was an office Bouhler. As far as I know the physicians were suggested on the part of the ministry of the Interior. In the course of that time I attended about four conferences which took place at the office of Bouhler where the ohio expert and three other exports also attended. There remaining conferences which took place else where were carried out without my participation
Q Could the Defendant Brack issue any independent orders within the Euthanasia Program?
A No.
Q Was Brack subordinated to you, witness?
A No, Brack was not subordinated to me but was subordinated to Bouhler.
Q Did Brack discuss medical matters with you?
A No.
Q Did you know that in the winter of 1941 to 1942, at the time when the catastrophe broke over the German Army in the East, members of the T-4 were assigned to carry out a rescue action in the East by . order of Hitler?
A I am of the opinion that they were already used before I visited Viasma which I have described to you; that would be already in December of 1941. These units were already used on the railway from Minsk to Smolensk. I think that this was a measure which was suggested by Dr. Todt.
Q Do you know how long this rescue action lasted?
A In my opinion and as far as I remember, it was concluded with the end of winter, around March or April.
Q Then I would like to ask you the following question, witness. By virtue of this decree of Hitler of 1 September 1939, were you and Bouhler given the assignment to authorize certain physicians to rive mercy deaths to incurably mentally insane -- was it your opinion to obtain the assurance of Hitler that these physicians, after having performed such euthanasia, if they were threatened with legal procedures, that they should be saved from such with intervention by the administrattion?
A Yes, absolutely.
Q Therefore, in the decree of Hitler, you have seen a statement by the head of the State, according to which these physicians were ex cepted from any legal procedures?
A Yes, that is quite clear. That has also been the case in the continuation of the pro rani in 1940 and 1941.
Q Now do you a rue with me that the State did not cease interest in the life of a human-being which was worthy of protection?
A I have not understood the previous question.
Q I have asked the question, do you agree with me that the State has not ceased an interest in the life of a human-being worthy of protection?
A Yes.
Q On the authority of Hitler and being familiar with these prerequisites, that is, the incurably insane, have you seen in that the statement by the head of the State that the interest of the State ceased in the lives of these people, namely the mentally and incurably ill?
A No, I have not seen that.
Q And why not?
A In this I have seen only the thought to help the condition of the person and to bring it to an end in the interest of the afflicted person. That was part of the State interest.
Q Therefore, the reason for these statements in this case lay in the person if the patient?
A Only in the person of the patient.
Q Witness, now according to your medical knowledge are they alive or have they lost so much of their legal value of living that a continuation as they are for all time has lost its value for the person?
A. Yes, for the-person himself, yes.
Q Do the so-called mentally dead belong to that group--that is, people who are in a condition of final incurable idiecy?
A I would count those people into that group, yes.
Q You have stated that the decision about the diagnoses as to their incurability was in the hands of experts who worked independently of each other on the individual cases, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q Now in your opinion were these experts now, in a certain Sense, State Organs? I want to repeat the question: Were these physicians whose task it was to make diagnoses, through the fact that they had been given the authority, were they now in a certain sense organs of the State as far as their diagnoses were concerned?
A With regard to the decree they have been just in that capacity, in an official position.
Q They did not have an official position but with regard to the decree they have had that capacity. Witness, with the specialized physicians is it possible to determine such cases of incurable mental diseases with absolute certainty?
A Within the framework of the general human considerations, yes, that possibility exists.
Q With the insufficiency of human knowledge can a mistake occur in the person of even a physician with much experience?
AA mistake is, of course, possible.
Q Now, does not new a deputy of the head of the State have to bear this possibility of mistakes in mind?
A This possibility was taken into account by the fact that a number of exports and also subsequently a number of observatory possibilities of the patients were made available to the physician: furthermore by the fact boat after having been confined to an institution for 5 years, the institute n where tho patient was located would still subject this patient to a period of long observation.
Q Therefore, to sum up for conclusion, you have seen in the security measures which you have just mentioned, you have seen State and medical guarantees?
A Yes, the State and medical guarantees.
Q Then I do not have any further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination of this witness on the part of any defense counsel?
There being none, the Prosecution may cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q Herr Brandt, since you have just been discussing Euthanasia we shall continue on that subject. I would like to ask you how much psychia trie training you have received?
A I have had no psychiatric training in particular.
Q How much first-hand knowledge have you received on insane patients?
A I am afraid I shall have to ask you to repeat the question. I did not quite understand it.
Q I asked you how much first-hand knowledge or experience you have had with insane persons.
A First of all at the university I had my ordinary training and afterwards I had no more practical experience in teaching regarding insane patients.
Q How many insane asylums have you been in for the purpose of observation and study?
A I did not have any observation in or visits to insane asylums. I said yesterday that I had been to Bethel and at a later stage I once visited a special clinic at Kassel. A art from that I have no special expert knowledge in the field of psychiatry.
Q Let us go back to the Fuehrer's letter of 1 September 1939. That is Document 1630-is, Prosecution Exhibit 330. I will read it to you although I am quite sure you are very familiar with it. It is dated Berlin, 1 September 1939.
"Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable, can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy Heath."
(Signed) "Adolf Hitler" This program was not limited to the incurably insane, was it?
A It was stated in its content that in case of a verdict of incurable disease, mercy death could be granted. I do not know whether you have just mentioned insane patients. All I heard was patients.
Q That is the point I am making, Herr Brandt. The order itself does not say "incurably insane patients" but just "incurable persons."
A Incurable persons, yes, I see.
Q And I therefore put the quest, on to you that the program was not limited to insane persons, was it?
A To begin with it was not a program at all. What I consider to be a program is an exact ruling on the limits within which people were to be dealt with in this matter. It was generally left open just by using, the word "patients" without quoting numbers or types of illnesses. Without that there was a definite light imposed in this matter. Since the word "patients" is used this also entails the possibility to deal with insane patients wit in the framework ,f this euthanasia and to relieve them of the degree of illness they are suffering from. The affair was designed for insane patients, such as T-4 at a later stage in collaboration with Dr. Linden's corresponding department in the ministry of Interior, carried out later. Individual cases of individual patients who were not insane did occur and did actually come to my knowledge. It did not come to my knowledge on the other hand that they were subjected to euthanasia. We were there concerned generally with applications coming from patients or from their relatives themselves, which either went to the Chancellery of the Fuehrer or were dealt with by the Ministry of the Interior or some other agency which transmitted them there, in such a case Bouhler's department, and, incidentally, one individual case dealt with by me which came to our clinic for observation. Generally speaking, these patients were enabled to go to a sanitarium or some other institution.
Q Now, Herr Brandt, let's get clear at the beginning that we don't want to be quarreling about the use of the words "euthanasia program." I am going to continue to say "program"; and I understand that you disagreed with that use of the word. But I think we understand what we mean. So let' don't consume time arguing about this triviality. Now, are you ready to swear that only insane persons, incurably insane persons, were subject to euthanasia in spite of the broad Fuehrer order here which says that euthanasia can be applied to any incurable person whether insane or otherwise?
A Yes, that is precisely whet I wish to express because of the individual cases which I knew about being no more than four or five as years went by; but in regard to these cases I must say that euthanasia was not carried out and there were no corresponding authorizations coming through.
Q You made a considerable point of the humanitarian motive in relieving these persons from pain and suffering. There is nothing in this letter which limits the applicability of euthanasia to those persons who are suffering pain, is there?
A If I were to read through its text, I probably wouldn't come across that word, no.
Q Well, I suggest to you that you couldn't swear to this Tribunal that the program was limited to the persons, insane or otherwise, suffering severe pain, could you?
A We weren't concerned with pain in the case of these insane patients. We were concerned with their condition, their entire condition, their mental condition. It isn't that stupidity or being demented is a painful affair; it is defectiveness of the mental structure; and it is connected with the disintegration of a man's personality; and, of course, these people because of the disintegration of their personal structure were included in that program which you have just described.
Q Well, I am sure that we all realize that, Herr Brandt; but you had made such a considerable point of the humanitarian motive of relieving the patient from subjective pain and suffering; and I'm putting it to you that there are a large number of persons who can be classed as insane who are in fact perfectly happy people.
Isn't that true?
A I don't think that an insane person is a happy human being, nor do I think that the life of an insane person, considering the circumstances under which it progresses, is something which is within the keeping of human dignity. These are considerations and trains of thought with which one will have to grapple again and again. Under certain circumstances this may be nothing but an argument with words; but the fact of the condition of such patients and the fact of a condition unfit for the continuation of life -that is the decisive factor. In that connection the question of a physical, bodily pain can under certain circumstances be displaced by the psychological burden which someone will have to bear who is, for instance, suffering from the condition of depression.
Q Of course, if you base the justification, the moral justification, on relieving people from pain and suffering, you can see that it is both consistent with that high moral principle and the wording of this Fuehrer letter to apply euthanasia to so-called hopeless cases of tuberculosis or cancer or syphilis and what not; isn't that true?
A That is not possible. I have already said earlier to Dr. Froeschmann and I emphasized it yesterday that as far as the status is concerned it cannot be Considered a burden and patients who are still in a position to be helped should be helped. The burden which is after all nothing but a burden to the budget must not under any circumstances play a part. That would be a sad condition. It is a sad condition in all civilized states that they do not raise the money and the fund essential for this purpose, both, I mean, for the supply and the welfare of such persons who arc worthy of such care in insane asylums. On the other hand as to care for tuberculosis patients, I should dislike to see these people included in the euthanasia program under any circumstances. It is a principle and most decisive difference which plan a part here. I have told you earlier that euthanasia can only play a part in the interest of the patient himself and under no circumstances must any other interest, any other factor, be of significance in this connection.
If I apply this to conditions in Germany, then before the war we spent three hundred fifty millions per annum for these asylums, which in comparison to other states is a large sum of money.