A. I had nothing to do with these matters. That can clearly be seen from the Gerstein document itself.
Q. The Gerstein document is Prosecution Exhibit 428.
The Prosecution further showed you document NO 1305, Exhibit No. 469. This concerns yellow fever vaccines, and here it is particularly emphasized that yellow fever vaccines contain living virus. Would you please make a statement on this, as to whether this living virus in the yellow fever vaccine is in any way dangerous to the human being's health
A. The situation is as follows. There is no virus disease against which you can conduct protective vaccines with dead virus. When such things are done at all--and they have been done since the middle of the 18th century--living germs have always been used which, however, have been attenuated in their toxicity for the human body in such a way that they cannot cause disease in the human being. In this specific case of yellow fever, it was a question of a virus strain which is extracted from mice. There are two main sorts of this vaccine. In this case they are referring to the virus which is passed on from mouse to mouse in the mouse's brain.
With such a virus it is impossible to infect a human being with a disease. There is simply a reaction in body temperature which, however, has no connection with any of the symptoms of yellow fever. Consequently, this is not yellow fever and it is not possible to induce serious symptoms from this virus extracted from mice. It is a matter entirely without danger. It is much less dangerous than the smallpox vaccination which every child receives.
Q. I made an objection to document NO-1189, Exhibit 471. In connection with that, the Tribunal said that you had already identified the contents of this document to the extent that there could be no objection raised against the document.
I should like to ask you this. In your statements that you made from memory, when you said "I remember the matter", were you taking an attitude towards this Nebe brief; or were you adopting an attitude, when you said that, on what you remembered from that conversation with Nebe?
A. I no longer recalled this conversation with Nebe. However, this document reminded me of it immediately. This was a very brief conversation-
Q. (Interposing) I don't want to know about the conversation with Nebe, but I want to know whether you remember having received this letter. We do not know how it got into the hands of the prosecution.
In other words, do you remember this letter, or is it true that what your testimony meant was that you did not remember the letter itself, but simply remembered the contents of the letter?
A. I do not remember the letter itself, not even now, now that I have seen it. I remember only the short conversation with Nebe on it.
DR. FLEMMING: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I have a further question for the witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Referring again to document No. NO-1198--have you that document before you?
A. No, Mr. President. Is that 1189 or 98?
Q. That is 1198. That is the letter from Gawitz to you.
A. Now I have it.
Q. Will you read the line following Arabic number two?
A. Compatibility of sera containing phenol.
Q. In the English document before the Court the word which is now translated "compatibility" is translated "tolerance". Just what do you mean? What is the meaning of the German word which is so translated?
A. "Tolerance" can be said, yes. What is meant is this: For a man who is sick with diphteria, to what extent can he tolerate a serum containing phenol? The matter of phenol is very carefully regulated in Germany by the State. Secondly, whether another serum, which does not have phenol in it, can better be tolerated.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand. That is sufficient.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. FROESCHNANN (For Dr. Nelte, counsel for the Defendant Handloser)-
MR. HARDY: That did not come through my headphones.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I will repeat.
Since Dr. Flemming submitted to the witness document No. 1305, Exhibit 489, in connection with the questions of yellow fever vaccine put to the witness by the prosecution, representing Dr. Nelte for the defendant Handloser I should like to ask three questions of the witness in this connection.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. First question -- Do you have the document before you?
A. No, but I am familiar with it.
Q. In this document it says, in paragraph 2: "We assume that President Gildemeister also has tested this on human beings to discover the tolerance for it." Does not this mean that this was simply a testing to find out whether the vaccine is harmful?
A. I said, in my direct examination, that this entire question was a purely technical one. It was not a question its to whether or not this vaccine had any protective value, because that question had already been answered by millions of vaccinations in many nations, and we had the same virus in our protective vaccinations as the other nations had in theirs. This is a purely technical question. Of the tolerance for the vaccine, the witness Bernhard Schuetz said that it was pretty difficult to maintain a normal temperature and that consequently the application of this serum was somewhat difficult. The question, therefore, was whether the doctors using it, first of all, were in command of this technique; and secondly, whether the vaccine was still effective or not, in other words, whether there was any additional effect that should be feared, for instance, if the temperature rose.
In my opinion it was a matter of conscientiousness to test this, but it was not a matter of basic importance, because I do not know, or I had never heard that any such vaccine had caused damage to the human being if, for instance, the virus in the vaccine died.
Q. Witness, I wanted to know something else than what you just said. I wanted to know whether, from paragraph 2, it can clearly be seen that these tests were simply carried on to see whether the vaccine was dangerous or not.
A. Yes, that can be seen from that paragraph.
Q. Then please tell me what you understand under the sign "OP number".
A. That is a sign for the Behring Works and many other laboratories that produce vaccines, and it means operation number. This designation is only used as long as the production of vaccine is still in the research stage. For instance, so far as it is a question of vaccines being manufactured in the plant, you do not use the designation "OP", but you speak of work numbers, the abbreviation for which is "WN".
Q. How many importations are included under such an OP number?
A. That depends on the vaccine, of course. I believe that a capsule alone has 50 such portions of vaccine. Generally the number includes not simply the ampule then being worked with, but it is simply being used as a model for the whole manufacturing series.
Q. Now the last question I have to put to you:
In view of this document 1305, you, witness, have already stated that this was a special case, namely, a special military operation in Africa, in which, roughly, forty thousand men participated. Can you, from this special case, conclude that there was a basic agreement between the Waffen SS and the Army according to which all vaccines went through the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS and were tested, namely, at Buchenwald?
A. There can be no question of that whatsoever. There was a testing station in Germany, namely, one designated by a special order on the part of the Reich Minister of the Interior. This was the Institute for Experimental Therapy, which carried out the State's testing of vaccinations.
DR. FROESCHMANN: No further questions.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the defendant Hoven. I should like to ask Dr. Mrugowsky a few questions regarding Document Number 5.
EXAMINATION BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, you still have that document before you?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you know about who was to carry out these injections?
A. Dr. Ding was.
Q. What can you say about why this vaccine was sent to Dr. Hoven?
A. If I recollect correctly, Dr. Ding did not have any postal address of his own. His research station and his experimental station were in Lolling's sector; and I therefore assumed that in the case of this letter, the letterhead for such matters went to the camp physician of Buchenwald.
Q. Did you ever discuss tho carrying out of these vaccinations with Dr. Hoven or have any negotiations on this matter at all with him?
A. You mean in January 1943? At that time I didn't know that Dr. Hoven existed. I only met him in September.
DR. GAWLIK: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions of the witness on the part of any defense counsel?
MR. HARDY: If defense counsel have no further questions, I have no further questions, your Honor.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I ask permission to submit a few documents; but first let me remark that the witness Dietsch I interrogated yesterday evening regarding the points upon which I wanted to interrogate him specifically. About the channel of command for Block 46 he knows nothing. Consequently I don't think it is right, since this Mrugowsky case has already lasted so long, to put him in the box as a witness; but I shall simply submit an affidavit from him.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, first of all I assume now that the defendant Mrugowsky's examination is finished and, secondly, in connection with the witness Otto Dietsch, he has been brought to Nurnberg as a defense witness; and they have no intention of calling him here to the witness stand. I request permission to interrogate Dietsch on behalf of the prosecution if the Tribunal will allow that. He is a prisoner here in the Nurnberg jail.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean to make the witness Dietsch the prosecution witness, or do you desire to cross examine him in connection with the affidavit which Dr. Flemming has mentioned?
MR. HARDY: No, I merely desire to interrogate him for investigation purposes in the same manner that Dr. Flemming has.
THE PRESIDENT: Interrogate him in the prison?
MR. HARDY: In the prison, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that may be done.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, counsel, that there will be no more questions to the defendant Mrugowsky?
DR. FLEMMING: No, that's true. I simply want to put in documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant is excused from his stand and may resume his place.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, regarding the question of the witness Dietsch the prosecution has concluded the presentation of its evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot call any further prosecution witnesses but could simply cross examine him regarding the affidavit I shall put in.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the prosecution did not suggest at this time that he intended to call the witness Dietsch; he desired to interrogate him in the prison.
DR. FLEMMING: I understood him to mean that he wanted to interrogate him here in court. Then let me submit Document Mrugowsky 42 on Page 216 of the Document Book, as Document Mrugowsky No. 58. I simply draw all these documents to your attention.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of this document to which you are referring, counsel?
DR. FLEMMING: Document 42, on Page 216, which I submitted as Exhibit 58. Then as next document, Document Mrugowsky 54 on Page 218.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel, until we can enter this.
DR. FLEMMING: Mrugowsky Document 54, Page 218, Mrugowsky Exhibit 59. Mrugowsky Document 84 on Page 220 becomes Mrugowsky Exhibit 60. Mrugowsky Document 86 on Page 225 I shall not put in.
May I ask whether the Tribunal has Document Book Number 2? I have a document book, Number 2, in which there are extracts from literature.
THE PRESIDENT: No, we have not that document book, Dr. Flemming. In that connection I don't have any notation concerning the offer of Mrugowsky Number 11, Pages 90 and 91. Are we to understand that will not be offered?
DR. FLEMMING: I am not putting that in. The reason for which I intended to was removed.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in connection with this Document Book Number 2, we have here some sixty-eight pages of extracts from the books that are on the prosecution table now which have just been turned over to us for examination by defense counsel. Now, these doctors and scientists here in this dock are not accused of experimentation on human beings as such; but, as we the prosecution agree that experimentation is necessary and there are accepted methods of medical investigation, we are charging these defendants with crimes. These crimes are mostly in connection with the use of nonvolunteers in their experiments, the lack of care and skill in the course of their experimentation, and many other such things which we might consider as being guilty of malpractice. In addition, there is a considerable difference between the extracts and information as outlined by these doctors and what is at issue in this case.
Now, this literature here is different from the literature of the accused that we have examined in this Tribunal in that the legitimate authors here openly state that they have made experiments on human beings and that they committed no crime as they had nothing to hide.
They were volunteers. But Mrugowsky on the stand admitted that when they submitted a report of their experiments they falsified the reports because they had something to hide.
Now we are going to try to clutter up the record with sixty-eight pages of scientific literature to prove that other experimentation has been carried out; but this experimentation, your Honor, has no connection whatsoever with what we have charged here. The prosecution deems it immaterial. Hence I do not wish to object to each and every document as it is put in; but I wish the Tribunal to consider this as a blanket objection to all the documents contained in Document Book 2.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, the prosecution has charged the doctors here of having carried out experiments on human beings who had not experimented on human beings who had not volunteered for this experiment. Consequently, in Document Book Number 2 I have not included one single experiment in which there is any mention in literature of the fact that the experimental subjects were volunteers, not even in those cases where the total description of the experiment proves that the voluntary aspect of their participation was probably only assumed. The experiments here described were carried out in part on children, in part in prisons, in part in mental institutions. I consider it necessary to show the Tribunal to what extent throughout the world such experiments are carried out on human beings who do not volunteer for them, in order to prove that the civilized attitude is not contrary to such experimentation and that nowhere in the world are such experiments considered criminal, because otherwise the Court would have to know of many objections in literature or in newspapers where such experiments are repudiated.
If these documents prove that in almost all nations of the world such experiments on non-volunteers are carried out without any objections on the part of the public, then in my opinion it has been sufficiently proved that such an undertaking of experiments of such a nature as was carried out here in Germany, are even in normal times not to be regarded as criminal, and then in a period in which a total war is being waged, it being such a period during which such experiments were carried out in Germany, and that is on orders of the highest officials in this case, they were all less to be regarded as criminal.
Another question will be which the Tribunal must examine is whether in the execution of these experiments any one can be charged with anything. However, in my opinion we must discriminate sharply between the question arising on medical experiments to clarify a question - - a medical question, or during wartime to present a military problem that non-voluntary persons, are they basically to be proved, or basically to be repudiated and characterized as criminals.
There is quite a different question on the other hand, namely, how these experiments were carried out, and the question, can a physician who carries out such experiments on State orders on persons whom the State make available to him for those experiments be punished for the experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of these exhibits, particularly in Mrugowsky's Book No. 2, bear on the latter phase of the situation to which you just referred?
DR. FLEMMING: You mean the question of fact that subjects were made available by the State?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, whether they were made available by the State, and the experiments were tried pursuant to an order of the State?
DR. FLEMMING: Here are included experiments on prisoners on which the physician could not have carried out if it was these prisoner criminals had not been made available by the State.
I would like to remind the Tribunal of the document submitted by Professor Leibrandt regarding the malaria experiment on 800 prisoners. Howover, I have not included this document in this Document Book No. 2. The experiments in part were carried out in mental institutions, that is, in closed institutions in which the physician had access to the patient only if the governmental official in charge of the institution permitted it.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I can see that Dr. Flemming and I agree one-hundred percent. We are not charging here that experiments as such are illegal or criminal. These extracts are not evidence of criminal experiments. If they were extracts of criminal experiments, they would not hide the fact - - - - then they would have hidden the fact that they experimented on human beings. In addition he states to you of using persons in insane asylum. We don't charge Professor Rose of experimenting on people in mental institutes, and typhus groups, it is perfectly legitimate. We are charging him with criminal experimentation on non-volunteers, and this material has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what is before this Tribunal.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, the Prosecutor said that the charges are only with the carrying on of criminal experiments. Let me point out that experiments can be criminal only either because they are carried out on persons who do not volunteer, or because they are carried out in such a way as to be stated to be criminal, as an experiment on a human being per se is not criminal, and is what we want to prove by referring to experiments that took place throughout the world. Then only the question will remain, were they experiments carried out in such a way or nature and the way in which they were carried out, to make them criminal, and that is why I want to put in these documents.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Flemming, I understood the position of the Prosecution was that they would agree with you that ordinarily speaking experiments upon human beings per se were not criminal, that was my understanding of what Mr. Hardy said.
Provided, of course, as Karl Brandt had stated from the witness box, the witnesses were volunteers, and the results to be expected were results which would be beneficial, and the expected results or anticipated results would be known to the physician by virtue of the fact that the field had been explored so far as possible as to experimentations upon animals, and that the contemplated experimental subjects would be given full information concerning the nature of the experiments, and the hazard expected, or normally expected to be encountered. It may be I am in error in my recollection, but it seems to me that is in essence to what Dr. Karl Brandt said from the witness stand. Now do these extracts of scientific data, I suppose taken from books, periodicals and scientific or medical treatises I disclose the state or the condition of the human being upon whom the experiments were being conducted. That is to say, does it disclose that they were or were not voluntary subjects? Does it disclose that they were inmates of the institution, and were made available by order of a governmental authority without having any choice in the matter of whether they would or would not be selected as experimental subjects?
DR. FLEMMING: In few of the experiments they are experiments on persons condemned to death, as is the case here in this court. In other cases they are experiments on children.
JUDGE SEBRING: Is that made to appear by the extracts offered?
DR. FLEMMING: They were children, yes.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Alexander has been reading this, and he can not find such a notation as it is stated by the defense counsel. It maybe we might proof read this document more carefully.
JUDGE SEBRING: I have been scanning them, and the documents I have scanned sofar do not disclose the status of the experimental subjects.
DR. FLEMMING: I am afraid that the translation was not correct. The translation said "The condition." I said, you can mean whether or not they were volunteers, didn't you?
JUDGE SEBRING: Precisely, yes.
DR. FLEMMING: It is my opinion that persons in a mental institution, in prison, and children can not be volunteers, and for this reason I am of the opinion that these experiments sofar as they are carried out on such persons are all exactly of the same sort as experiments here under discussion at the moment.
JUDGE SEBRING: Are you agreed to that statement on behalf of your client that it is impossible for a person incarcerated in an insane asylum, or children hospital, or other public institution to give a valid consent to experimentation upon a person?
DR. FLEMMING: A person in a mental institution in my opinion could never give his permission for an experiment to be carried out on him, because he is not in a position to be rational about the whole question.
JUDGE SEBRING: I understand that perfectly, but do you confine your statement to that particular individual who because of mental deficiency is incapable legally of giving consent?
DR. FLEMMING: No, but I am submitting these documents and I want to show that everywhere in the world no objection is raised by the public against experiments of this sort. The experiments have been public, no one objected to them, and it shows that attitude in the whole world is that experiments can be carried out on such persons if scientific interest makes it necessary. The public then sees it also as ethically necessary, necessary from the ethical point of view and has no objection.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the Prosecution will stipulate that experimentations throughout the world is permissible on voluntary subject, and will stipulate that fact, but will not stipulate that experimentations is admissible or permissible on non-volunteers in any section of the world. In view of the fact that most of these documents that will be introduced are of that nature, then I don't see any reason for them to be put into evidence here.
DR. FLEMMING: To the extent that experiments are carried out on prisoners, it is everywhere in the world the fact that these experiments are carried out on persons who exercise this will, but this will is so limited by the fact they are in prison they cannot give any voluntary consent, and I say again I have not in any manner in my document book given a single experiment where the subject was voluntary. In most places where any literature, there is mentioned that experiments were carried out on so and so many volunteers. Now I don't include these cases in my book. Where ever that statement was not made, I assume they were not volunteers, and I have not included those experiments in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be recess at 1:30 o'clock and will examine the different documents in the mean time.
(Recess of the Tribunal until 1330 hours, 3 April 1947)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 3 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has examined documents contained in Mrugowsky Book 2....
DR. FLEMMING: May I make one explanation first? It has been brought to my attention that apparently on the question of the voluntary nature of the people in prisons I expressed myself incorrectly. It is, of course, possible that there is a certain degree of voluntariness on the part of people in prisons but in the case of persons who are so limited in their freedom of movement when in prison one must assume that in contrast to people who can move freely it cannot be assumed that they are volunteers if they place themselves at the disposal of such experiments. It is possible that people did volunteer in prison, as the article in LIFE shows about the 800 prisoners who volunteered for malaria experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has examined Mrugowsky Document Book 2 and, as it occurs to the Tribunal that some of the other defendants might offer similar documents in evidence before the conclusion of the trial, that it would be advisable to postpone a definite ruling upon this matter until the last defendant has closed his case, at which time, if other documents have been offered, they can all be considered together. If no other documents are offered at that time, the Tribunal will again consider the offer by counsel for Defendant Mrugowsky of documents in his Book 2.
MR. HARDY: In view of the Tribunal's ruling, then, when documents of this nature are submitted, will it be necessary for me on each occasion to render a formal objection or, on documents of this nature, can we reserve our right to object until the end of the completion of each defendant's case?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that would be on such documents as this, publications, whether in newspapers, magazines, or books, which are offered in evidence and which correspond to these documents contained in Mrugowsky Document Book 2. Those documents will all be considered when the last defendant has rested his case and objections may be reserved until that time because the Tribunal will not consider, from this time on, the admission of evidence of this nature.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is understood, of course, for the record, that this ruling preserves the right of Defendant Mrugowsky to offer this document book at some later time.
DR. FLEMMING: Then I should merely like to ask to reserve the right, Mr. President, for submitting a number of affidavits and other documents later, which have not yet been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, of course, documents of similar nature to those contained in your Document Book 2?
DR. FLEMMING: No, documents of a different nature,--affidavits and similar evidence, such as in Document Book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: And you say that those documents are not now ready to be presented to the Tribunal, is that correct?
DR. FLEMMING: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: It has not been the policy of the Tribunal to close the door to evidence which may be competent evidence which may be offered, material evidence, by other defendants as their cases are heard, before the last defendant has rested his case. The Tribunal understands that the defendants are under some handicap in preparing their evidence so the matter will be acted upon and any defendant will be heard before the defendants have closed their case and other evidence may be offered and will not be rejected upon the ground that it is offered too late-- I mean upon the ground alone that the evidence is offered too late.
DR. FLEMMING: Then, at the moment, I have nothing more to submit in the Mrugowsky case.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand then, counsel, that all the documents contained in Document Book 1 and Document Book 1-A which you desire to offer at any time, have now been offered?
DR. FLEMMNG: Yes, they have all been offered.
DR. SEIDL (For the defendant Herta Oberheuser): Before I ask the Tribunal to call the defendant Dr. Oberheuser to the witness stand, I should like to offer the affidavit of a witness whose examination has been approved by the Tribunal. In view of the fact that this witness, Margaretha Mydla, who is in Berlin, has not yet arrived, I shall first offer an affidavit. It is possible that after the presentation of evidence in the case of the defendant Oberheuser I shall be able to dispense with examining this witness before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the document book been prepared for the defendant Oberheuser?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the documents for the defendant Oberheuser are in the same document book as for the defendant Dr. Karl Gebhardt, which has already been offered. Other documents are in Document Book 2, which will be offered later. In view of the fact that the witness has not yet arrived, I should like to read merely this one affidavit out of order. The affidavit reads as follows --
THE PRESIDENT: Are copies of this affidavit available for the Tribunal?
DR. SEIDL: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, I assumed that copies had already been given to the Tribunal, but I still have a few translations.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, as I understand it, apparently this is the same document book which has been put in for Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser, and this is an additional affidavit to that document book.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: That is my understanding.
DR. SEIDL: The affidavit reads as follows --
THE PRESIDENT: What number do you assign to this exhibit?
DR. SEIDL: I shall give it the number of Oberheuser No. 1. I quote:
"I, Frau Margaretha Mydla, resident at Berlin, 0 112, Herterstrasse 3/11, have had my attention called to fact that I make myself liable to punishment if I give a false affidavit. I declare on oath that my state ment is true and correct and that it was made in order to be submitted as evidence to the Military Tribunal No. 1 at the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.
"On 13 January 1943 I was for political reasons sent to the women's concentration camp Ravensbruck. The reason for my detention in this camp was the fact that I had uttered insulting remarks about the wife of Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler.
"Already ten days after my arrival in the camp, viz. on January 24, 1943, I fell seriously ill. I was taken to the sick bay of the camp where the camp physician, Dr. Rosenthal, was to treat me. Dr. Rosenthal, however, did not concern himself with me and I owe it merely to the help of other prisoners that Dr. Rosenthal did not, on account of my exceedingly poor general state of health and my serious illness, kill me or lighten my death after six days by an injection. He evidently doubted my recovery.
"After three weeks in the sick bay of the camp I was taken back to my block in a very poor state indeed.
"After eight days I was again admitted to the sick bay where Frl. Dr. Oberheuser treated me. She was the first to ascertain that I suffered from abdominal typhus. I further had erysipelas of the leg and inguinal rupture and furthermore suffered from an intense itch. Frl. Dr. Oberheuser gave me all conceivable care and also saw to it that I received a suitable diet, although I was only a skeleton and weighed 84 pounds instead of 126 when I was put under her care in the sick bay. Frl. Dr. Oberheuser did not only see to it that I received good food but by giving me suitable medicaments she did everything that was in her power and that could help me, in strong contrast to Dr. Rosenthal, who did not concern himself with me at all.
"Frl. Dr. Oberheuser has used her influence for me and even reprimanded the nurse who refused to give me my medicine, and then ordered her to give me the prescribed medicaments and also the corresponding anodynes.