The selection and examination of the persons who were subjected to
euthanasia were criminally negligent and inadequate.
The defendant Karl Brandt testified that the doctors in the Euthanasia
Program were given enormous responsibility. (_Tr. p. 2425._) He,
together with Bouhler, had authority over the physicians who were
participating in the program. (_Tr. p. 2408._) He admitted, however,
that he did not make observation in, or visits to, insane asylums. He
was only once in the Bethel insane asylum and visited a special clinic
in Kassel. He admitted having no expert knowledge in the field of
psychiatry. (_Tr. p. 2470._) He, the doctor of the two persons who were
charged by Hitler with the execution of euthanasia (Bouhler was not a
doctor), authorized the doctors to administer euthanasia. He did not
make investigations as to the medical abilities of these men. (_Tr. p.
2476._) He does not know one single name of the total of ten to fifteen
doctors who, according to his testimony, were charged with the execution
of euthanasia. (_Tr. pp. 2478-9._) Brandt testified that he only visited
one of the extermination stations, Grafeneck, in 1940, one time (_Tr. p.
2480_), and never went to an observation station. (_Tr. p. 2481._) In
winter 1939-1940, however, he visited, together with the defendant
Brack, Bouhler, and Conti, the euthanasia station of Brandenburg, where
the first gas chamber was set up. The purpose of this visit was to
observe a test experiment in which four insane persons were gassed.
(_Tr. pp. 7645-6._)
Victims of euthanasia were condemned to death by so-called top experts
who had never so much as seen the patient. The victims were only
superficially examined on the basis of questionnaires. (_NO-470, Pros.
Ex. 332._) Pfannmueller, an expert, received no less than 159 shipments
of questionnaires, averaging between 200 and 300 questionnaires each,
prior to 15 April 1941, for judgment as to life and death. (_NO-1129,
Pros. Ex. 354_; _NO-1130, Pros. Ex. 355_.) Since his main occupation was
that of manager of an insane asylum, his judgment of the questionnaires
was only a secondary activity. In a period of 18 days, this same expert
passed judgment on no less than 2,058 questionnaires. (_NO-1129, Pros.
Ex. 354_; _Tr. p. 7384_.)
Questionnaires on patients who were in an asylum for as short a time as
one month were filled out and formed the basis for judgment as to
whether the particular inmate should be killed. (_NO-825, Pros. Ex.
358._) Many of these questionnaires were inadequately completed so that
it was impossible in any event to form a clear medical opinion. Experts
were also exposed to pressure to induce them to give positive opinions.
(_Tr. p. 1881._) Unanimous opinion of the experts was not necessary to
bring about a positive judgment which would condemn the patient to be
killed. The dissenting opinion of one expert did not suffice to save the
life of the patient. (_Tr. pp. 1907-8._)
In a concentration camp 105 Aryans were “examined” by the expert
Mennecke in an afternoon. The “examination” of 1,200 Jews, which
consisted in the transcription of the reason for their arrest from the
files to the reports, took only a few days. In a letter to his wife,
Mennecke himself put the word “examination” in quotation marks. It is
impossible that any kind of mental examination of the patients was
carried out. (_Tr. p. 1892_; _NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412_.) In fact, these
Jews were mentally and physically healthy. (_Tr. p. 1893._) It was
impossible for Dr. Heyde and his doctors commission, which was active in
the Dachau concentration camp, to examine the great number of inmates
selected in the short time they spent there. The examination consisted
solely in the cursory study of personal records in the presence of the
inmate. (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497._) Doctors Schumann and Gorgass
screened approximately 100 concentration camp inmates during a one day’s
visit in the Buchenwald concentration camp. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._)
It was not the degree of insanity which was the decisive factor in the
decision as to whether or not the inmates should be killed, but rather
their usefulness for work. The manner of employment, the value of work,
if possible compared with the average performance of healthy persons,
had to be carefully filled out in the questionnaires. (_1696-PS, Pros.
Ex. 357._) Valuable workers were not sent to euthanasia stations.
(_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._)
Patients who had arteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cancer, and other
disabling illnesses were included in the program. (_3896-PS, Pros. Ex.
372._) “Useless eaters” were starved to death. (_3816-PS, Pros. Ex.
370_; _NO-823, Pros. Ex. 399_.) Persons who no longer had any value to
the state were considered “useless eaters.” It was pointed out that
during the war healthy people had to give up their lives while these
severely ill people continued to live, and would continue to live unless
euthanasia was carried out. In addition, it was stated the lack of food
and nursing personnel justified the elimination of these people. (_Tr.
p. 1906._) Concentration camp inmates were examined as to their capacity
for work and their political reliability and were selected accordingly
for euthanasia. (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497._) Questionnaires were
completed on concentration camp inmates who were not insane. (_NO-3010,
Pros. Ex. 503._) Prior to 27 April 1943, Action 14 f 13 encompassed the
execution not only of insane persons, but persons suffering from
tuberculosis, bedridden individuals, and others unfit for manual work.
(_NO-1007, Pros. Ex. 413._) Only inmates who were no longer fit for work
were to be brought before the examining commission. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex.
411._)
In the case of killing of children, a previous consultation with the
parents or relatives did not take place. (_3864-PS, Pros. Ex. 367._) The
defense witness Pfannmueller testified that, after having received
authorization to kill the individual child, he invited the relatives to
visit the child because it was sick. However, he never notified the
parents or guardians that he was going to kill the child, as this was a
top secret matter. (_Tr. p. 7394._) From the documents submitted by the
defendant Brack, it is clear that the parents were deceived about the
purpose of the transfer of the children to institutions where they were
to be killed. It was the business of the medical officers to induce the
parents to send their children to such institutions. To accomplish this,
the parents were told that in the case of individual diseases there was
a possibility of achieving certain successes with treatment. (_Brack 52,
Brack Ex. 43_; _Tr. p. 7717_.) The parents were told that the best care
would be taken of the child in such institutions and everything possible
in the way of modern therapy would be carried out. (_Brack 51, Brack Ex.
42._) From these documents it is clear that the parents and relatives
were not only not asked for their consent in the case of killing of
children, but were deceived in order to make the transfer to a
euthanasia institution possible. A letter from the Reich Committee for
Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases to the
Eichberg Sanatorium shows on its face that, in the case of euthanasia of
children, the consent of the parents was not sought. (_NO-890, Pros. Ex.
443._) This evidence is corroborated by the affidavit of Dr. Suchomel.
(_NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557._) The defendant Brack testified that the
consent of the parents to the killing of children was an absolute
prerequisite. The medical officers who made the arrangements for the
transfer of the children to the killing stations were allegedly charged
with the task of informing the parents and requesting their consent.
This statement is in contradiction to Brack’s own documents, which
clearly show what the parents really were told, as well as the top
secret character of the program. The proof has further shown that
Pfannmueller himself was one of the doctors who had, according to the
decree of the Minister of the Interior of 18 August 1939, to report
deformed and deficient children. (_NO-3355, Pros. Ex. 553._) He himself
testified that he never informed the parents about the fate their
children had to expect. Brandt admitted that in the case of the killing
of insane adults, the consent of the relatives was not requested and
their opinion not heard. (_Tr. pp. 2427-8._)
There is abundant proof that the German public was horrified by
euthanasia and the manner of its execution. A police report stated:
“The wildest scenes imaginable are reported to have taken place,
as some of these people did not board the bus voluntarily and
were therefore forced to do so by the accompanying personnel.
There were people who were imbeciles and feeble-minded, and were
said to have other epileptic illnesses as well, and whose upkeep
the state and other public bodies up till now had to provide for
completely, or at least for the greater part. People went so far
as to formulate and disseminate more or less the following
assertion: ‘The state must be in a bad way now or it could not
happen that these poor people should simply be sent to their
death solely in order that the means, which until now have been
used for the upkeep of these people, are made available for the
prosecution of the war.’” (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)