"Jeder Mensch hat einen Name": Legal and Ethical Dimensions of Human Experiments under National Socialism.

Europe PMC Funders Group Author Manuscript Psychiatrie (Stuttg). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 23. Published in final edited form as: Psychiatrie (Stuttg). 2010 ; 7(4): 255–260.

Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts

“Jeder Mensch hat einen Name”: Legal and Ethical Dimensions of Human Experiments under National Socialism Summary This paper considers whether it is right to identify by name victims of experiments abused either for psychiatric research, or for other types of experimentation in psychiatric hospitals and institutions. Similar questions arise as to whether it is possible to identify any of the persons for whom brains and other body parts were held for medical research and teaching.

Keywords “Euthanasia”; “Aktion T4”; Human experimentation; National Socialist medicine; Carl Schneider


In 1979 Günther Schwarberg identified the twenty children killed in the Bullenhuser Damm school in Hamburg, and published the tragic story of these experimental victims in the illustrated magazine, Stern. The children were selected in Auschwitz for experiments of a tuberculosis vaccine. Schwarberg gave the names and identities, providing relatives for the first time the certain knowledge of what had happened to their child. Stern was fined 100000 DM for continuing to publish its series of articles, while Schwarberg took the commemoration of these twenty victims to heart, so that they became “his” twenty children.1 He campaigned for fitting commemoration, as well as for the prosecution of involved medical researchers, one of whom, the forensic pathologist Hans Klein, remained at Heidelberg.2 The question arising for victims of psychiatric research is whether it is possible, and ethically right, to do what Schwarberg achieved in microcosm for this hitherto anonymous group on a larger scale and identify victims of experimentation in psychiatric hospitals and institutions under National Socialism? One might ask whether it is possible to identify the “euthanasia” victims from whom brains were obtained for medical research and teaching? Two broader problem areas intersect here. The first is whether it is possible to determine the overall number of victims of human experiments and other research atrocities under National Socialism? The experiments in psychiatric institutions (some to test tuberculosis vaccines) can be linked to identification of all victims of experiments. A project on Victims of Human Experiments and Research Atrocities under National Socialism (completion in 2011, funding agency is the Arts and Humanities Research Council, host University is Oxford Brookes University) has identified approximately twenty thousand victims to date.3 Names of surviving victims will be largely anonymised in accordance with requirements of the Bundesarchiv (raising a range of problems such as verification, and appropriate commemoration).

et al.

Page 2


The second intersecting issue is whether it is right not only to quantify but also to identify victims of “euthanasia” killings under National Socialism? Despite reconstructions of victim groups in specific institutions and regions, publications from the Federal Republic of Germany are distinctive in the near total anonymisation of “euthanasia” victims. This is the case for victims whether they were routinely killed, or (a far smaller number) killed with the added incentive of experimentation, or to retain the brain for research.


Since the 1980s, the history of “euthanasia” became incorporated into Holocaust history. “Aktion T4” (the organised killing of psychiatric patients and other victims from September 1939, the name standing for the offices at Tiergartenstrasse 4 in Berlin) is recognised as crucial in the genesis of the carbon monoxide gas chambers of the “Final Solution”. Institutional and regional studies have achieved much to document the history of psychiatric killings. Two related aspects remain partially researched. The first concerns the coerced human experiments and taking of body parts for research, and how these were linked to the “euthanasia” killings. The second concerns the killing of children in the euphemistically named “Kinderfachabteilungen”. Radical historians, notably Götz Aly, in the late 1980s prompted research institutes to remove (for burial or incineration) body parts of victims. But neither Aly (fixated on the perpetrators) nor most deans of medical faculties, and institute directors had any interest in identifying the victims or the full provenance of their collections.4 In the Federal Republic the body parts were removed with rapidity and secrecy, virtually as a “Nacht und Nebel” action. Exceptionally, the University of Tübingen instigated a commission of inquiry, and later a couple of universities as Jena investigated provenance.5 In Frankfurt/M, there was student and public criticism of the failure to involve victims’ organisations.6 In Heidelberg on 13 January 1989 the Rector’s office gave the order by phone for the “vollständige Entfernung” of all specimens of victims of Nazism.7 When researchers examined the experiments initiated by the professor of psychiatry Carl Schneider at Heidelberg in 1943-44, the anatomical specimens had already disappeared.8 Questions of identification, provenance and responsibility were avoided. The general situation in Holocaust history is to document individual victims, researching the circumstances of injury and death, and commemorating by name. In Germany commemoration of “euthanasia” victims has been only exceptionally by name – thus one courageously defiant child victim, Ernst Lossa, takes a symbolic role for all victims in the Kinderfachabteilung at Kaufbeuren.9 The memorial at Berlin-Buch explicitly anonymises.10 Recent research on Kinderfachabteilungen and on child killings in what today is the Czech Republic suggests the need to revise the estimate of 5000 deaths, calculated by a prosecutor of the Staatsanwaltschaft Hannover in October 1964, but which remains the standard figure. Here an aim would be to identify comprehensively patients who were held in these various killing wards, the percentage who died, and whether victims were additionally used for experiments, or their body parts retained for research. The situation in other countries makes the Federal Republic appear distinctive. In Austria, where release of names by archives is governed by provincial regulations, the Magistrat Wien has released names of the Spiegelgrund psychiatric victims and naming victims is the tendency. All countries have strong regulations in force for living persons, particularly for their medical records. In the United Kingdom and United States privacy ceases at death. The

Psychiatrie (Stuttg). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 23.

et al.

Page 3

principle is one of openness with guarantees of freedom of information. The situation as regards medical records after death is more complex. Here one is caught between principles of public disclosure for reasons of violations of ethical conduct and Holocaust related research, and discretion by holding authorities in applying privacy restrictions.


Research on particular institutions has revealed pockets of experimentation, exploiting the killing regimes. Occasionally, the tragedy of individual victims is documented. One victim who stands out in Klee’s narrative is the seven-year old Valentina Zacchini, filmed undergoing medical tortures as a living subject before being killed for dissection.11 However, the situation for “euthanasia” victims is that in the Federal Republic full names of victims continue to be withheld. The reasons are that this “protects” relatives and descendants’ families, and archivists require this due to German privacy laws. One outcome is documents with blanked out names of victims. At the exhibition Deadly Medicine, mounted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, documents from non-German collections had names given, but German-originated documents had names blanked out, in accordance with the requirements of German archivists over many years.12


For the “T4” killings, there are full records of 30161 victims. The Bundesarchiv has restricted access to relatives and to academic researchers. There exists a composite listing, but it has been a condition that names and personal details should not be published. Its position has been supported by historical advisers from the Federal Republic. One problem is very obvious: if names are not made available, it is unlikely that a relative would contact the Bundesarchiv. In 2002 two activist organisations the Landesverband PsychiatrieErfahrener Berlin-Brandenburg and the ,Israeli Association Against Psychiatric Assault’ undertook a remarkable public reading of names at the Wittenberg Platz in Berlin. Noticing the interest of onlookers, who believed their relatives were killed, they published a listing in contravention of the Bundesarchiv restriction, providing links to commemorative websites set up by descendents. A high proportion of “T4” victims were born before 1900, and as early as 1850!13 Patients have indeed a right to privacy, but even taking a period of closure of a patient file on ethical grounds (there is no international standard for patient files) into account, the Bundesarchiv’s position has prevented undertaking a memorial to identified victims of “euthanasia”, and developing a full understanding of the processes of murder. The questions arise whether protecting the victim in fact amounts to protecting the perpetrators, who by now are deceased, or - as the activist alleges - an attempt to deny compensation (even though these amounts have been extremely small). We have three interested groups: historians who additionally can provide clinical accountability, relatives – who cannot readily find out if a record is held, and a wider public, who have a legitimate interest in access to documentation concerning Nazi atrocities. To trace a victim’s life history the unique name is required, reconstructing the stages of transfer from an initial institution. A further methodological reason is to avoid risks of double counting of victims. Holocaust victims are a sensitive issue – too low numbers signify denial, but too high numbers discredit concerned lobbying groups. The numbers and identification require absolute accuracy. Because we do not have victims’ names, it makes it harder to link to other records. Questions arise not only about Jewish patients, but also about patients in annexed territories like Alsace, and also treatment of patients from outlying


et al.

Page 4

German communities such as the South Tyrol. How long they were patients in institutions, which ones and their diagnoses are concerns. Unless one has full names developing historically meaningful statistical profiles is not possible.14 Standards more widely pertaining in Holocaust history have not been recognised for these victims. Medical ethicists have not dealt with the issue of anonymisation, and closure of victims’ files.


The official position is that relatives may have access by personal request, and that they should be protected from the stigma of mental illness having occurred in their family. German laws on protection of personal data appear more extensive than in other countries (in Britain, essentially, data protection ceases on the death of the individual). Historically, Germany lacks a culture of public disclosure and access to documentation as a citizen’s right, rather than at an official’s discretion. (This contrasts to access and disclosure in United Kingdom and United States archives, which are open to all as a civic right.) The argument for commemoration can be stated in terms that medical and official agencies marked certain individuals out for destruction. The procedures involved isolating victims from relatives and concerned carers, the transfer to a holding, and then to a killing institution. The medical and official view denied individuality. It therefore seems appropriate that restoring their name to a victim would be a dignified act of humane commemoration, and recognition that they were a person in the fullest sense.


Here, we enter the problematic area of the conduct of relatives. The assumption that relatives wished to dispose of the sick as a burden was stated by Karl Brandt, as a justification for “euthanasia”. The correct identification of Brandt’s depiction of the “Kind Knauer” has admittedly posed problems outlined by the medical historian Udo Benzenhöfer.15 But the default position of anonymisation is one that requires critical scrutiny. In the case of children who were killed, there can be no descendants. It may be that a parent chooses not to name their child. This position requires respect, but the duration of the parent’s wish (should it be in perpetuity?), and the extension from the particular requests to the victim group as a whole seem questionable. There are moral reasons that victims should be accorded the names of which they stripped and denied in the process of their annihilation. There are numerous instances of concern among relatives at the time, as the placing of death notices as a spontaneous and courageous protest by relatives. Concerned relatives often tried to extricate their children and relatives from the killing machinery. Certain psychiatrists, neurologists, and nurses acted courageously to protect patients, sometimes with success. Moreover, the reasons for a family requiring anonymisation raise questions about any stigma of mental illness and disability in modern Germany. The view that mental illness and disability constitute an indelible stain is a sad reflection on social values. One fortunately does not take the view that having a relative who was a racial victim, as Jewish, or as Sinti or Roma, represents an equivalent mark of shame. Although medically administered, the killing and experimental procedures were forms of genocide. It is questionable whether medical violence should be categorised as somehow different to other forms of violence. Turning to the victims of human experiments, there is not as yet any overall figure of the number of surviving and killed victims. A project on “Victims of Human experiments and


et al.

Page 5


coerced research under National Socialism” in progress at Oxford Brookes University analyses who the research subjects were and their life histories. Although publishing names are restricted by certain archives (not least the Bundesarchiv), the project will publish an analysis of when and why the experiments took place. Until this commenced, we knew only of clusters of victims, as those identified by Schwarberg, or of the Strassburg Jewish skeleton collection victims.16 Identification reveals that victims were transported long distances. Greek Jews formed the largest group among the Jewish skeleton victims. Similarly, the Bullenhuser Damm victims were of diverse nationalities. That these were victims of a tuberculosis experiment links them to child victims of tuberculosis experiments at psychiatric institutions of Kaufbeuren and Berlin-Wittenau. One possible group targeted for extermination was from the South Tyrol, and sent to Germany as victims of experimentation. This possibility adds an international dimension to the problem of anonymisation.


The position of victims held in clinics and experimented on remains shadowy. The Allies for legal reasons focused on experiments in concentration camps. The “euthanasia” trials were limited – as the first Hadamar Trial – to non-German victims. The authorities of the Federal Republic adopted a remarkable form of “doublethink” (to use George Orwell’s term from the novel 1984). The Federal Republic (unlike the German Democratic Republic) denied the legality of the Nuremberg Trials. It was possible for a physician convicted at the Medical Trial of 1946-7, as Hans Poppendick/ Poppendieck (he used variant spellings to confuse the authorities) to obtain a Führungszeugnis that he had never been criminally convicted. Poppendick had attended a training course in human heredity for SS officers at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (KWI) for Anthropology. On release from prison at Landsberg, he approached the former KWI Director, Otmar von Verschuer at the University of Münster, submitting research (carried out during the war) to obtain an MD, and practiced as a physician at Hude. Only when concerned victims protested (as against Herta Oberheuser) was the right to practice withdrawn.17 While the Nuremberg verdicts were not recognised, the Federal Republic generally only recognised the select number of experiments cited at the Nuremberg Medical Trial for compensation. Rather than analysing the full trial documents, the official reference guide was the overview published by the neurologist and psychoanalyst Mitscherlich.18 The authorities ignored the linked publication on psychiatry by Platen-Hallermund.19 A further irony was that this book was so disliked by German psychiatrists, that Mitscherlich never obtained a professorial chair in a Medical Faculty. As a summary account, Mitscherlich’s overview was necessarily incomplete. There was no interest in providing any form of comprehensive documentation on the Trial until the initiative of Doerner with Ebbinghaus and Roth.20 German officials never established the full extent of coerced experimentation. Surviving German victims of psychiatric experiments did not request compensation under the provisions of the scheme of July 1951. The scheme compensated for loss of earnings rather than pain and physical damage, so that it was not suitable for the psychiatric experimental victims who were neither compensated nor received any form of apology. One case which emerges from compensation records is that of victims of luminal injections at Lubliniec in German-occupied Poland. The victims claimed that between August 1942 and


et al.

Page 6

November 1944, the physician Buchalik researched on 235 victims with different doses of luminal. The official rejection was that the research did not appear in the Mitscherlich overview, and that the victims were of “euthanasia” (not compensated for Poles) rather than experimentation.21


It is instructive to compare the situation of two well documented clusters of research victims, those of the Forschungsabteilung of Carl Schneider and the Spiegelgrund in Vienna. Both sets of victims are commemorated with memorials at the institutions where the victims were killed. The memorial for the Heidelberg/Wiesloch victims gives the first name and age.22 The meticulous research by Peschke, and then by Roelcke et al. anonymises the victims. The reason for so doing is not given, and so it is not clear whether the clinic director where archives were consulted, the state archives where some documentation is located, required anonymisation, or whether the historians themselves decided to anonymise. Peschke in his paper of 1993 states a key problem – that anonymisation needs to be sustained but that subsequent researchers should be able to locate documentation. I have not found it possible to trace individuals on an anonymised basis, linking the references in the papers and the memorial. One sometimes has a first name, sometimes an age and gender, and sometimes an unspecified reference to a patient. Because there were complex transfers to and from other institutions (including those in Alsace), reconstruction becomes challenging.23 The twenty-one names on the memorial follow the convention of a first name and age. When a relative requested that their child be anonymised, whether the decision was made to extend the anonymisation to the group, or that the anonymisation was going in any case to occur is not clear. The anonymisation stands in contrast to the well over two hundred victims of the Spiegelgrund killings in Vienna as named individuals.


One issue raised by the killings is the preservation of the victims’ body parts, which was extensive in Vienna. In 2002 the body parts and the glass slides were buried in named graves with the year of birth and death at the Zentralfriedhof. There is an impressive memorial at the hospital marking each victim (as well as an excellent and well visited exhibition on racial hygiene and psychiatry in a nearby hospital pavilion). The anatomical department at Wiesloch can be compared to that of the Spiegelgrund. On 24 January 1944 Schneider described how brains were obtained from Eichberg, and elsewhere with the aim of anatomical studies of 300 “idiots”.24 There is documentation that some victims in Heidelberg had the brain preserved. It appears that these brains existed until the early 1990s. Their removal and disappearance is a sad reflection on the prevalence of concerns to conceal provenance. A key issue has been timing. For both in Vienna and Heidelberg there were assistants still alive at the time, Rauch in Heidelberg and Gross in Vienna. Yet, the Otto Wagner-Krankenhaus and the tranquil dignity of the graves at the Zentralfriedhof offer commemoration of individuals, and a collective memorial drawing attention to the scale of the atrocity.25 Without a name – or a unique identifier – it is impossible to trace the network of institutions through which a victim may have passed. The effect of not having a name sustains the


et al.

Page 7


attempt to maintain secrecy begun at the time of atrocity regarding the networks of perpetrators and custodial institutions. Pesch describes a situation of transfers to the “Kinderfachabteilung” (although it officially no longer existed) under Josef Arthur Schreck, to Hoerdt and Stefansfeld in Alsace, to Kaufbeuren where two patients died, and large transports to Emmendingen, and then on to other institutions. That some patients died, either deliberately being killed, or from other causes, makes the situation complicated and unclear. Schneider requested close observation and the brain forwarded in the event of death.26 The uncertainty regarding Schneider’s brain pathological specimens raises the issue of “euthanasia” brains and other body parts which in Germany have been subject to strict confidentiality. Hallervorden, director of the institute for brain pathology at Berlin-Buch, and Spatz received over a thousand brains from “T4” killing centres and Kinderfachabteilungen. Hallervorden knew whether a victim was a twin, and what the prior medical history was. Whether a victim had a degenerative disease, the age, and gender were all significant.27 In 1991, the brain pathologist Peiffer took a critical position from within brain pathology. The key issue was whether brain pathologists exerted influence on those who were to be killed. Peiffer set out to determine the extent that “euthanasia” brains were used for research rather than simply cremated, by analysing signs on the patient files. All were anonymised, so that linkage to names in any other institutional records was not possible. If there were identifications of the names of the persons whose brains Hallervorden and Spatz received, then interpreting the patient files might have been an easier task. Peiffer was unable to decipher the meaning of the numerous markings and codes on the file covers, although he estimated that at least a thousand brains were taken from “T4” victims.28


The problem when it comes to researching human experimentation is further compounded in that the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) has to date not provided an accessible analysis of its Forscherakten for the period of National Socialism. The UK and USA operate systems of public access and transparency as a civic right. Privacy laws in the Federal Republic significantly impede research on victims of research atrocities, while protecting the by now deceased generation of perpetrators. The Federal Republic operates systems of access to documentation on the basis of restrictions, which depend on the discretion of an individual archives official. As a researcher I have found the situation highly variable, with greater accessibility in one Federal archive than another towards the same documentation. Despite the completion of a major project on the history of the DFG under National Socialism, the situation remains problematic. The DFG has a memorial to its role in sponsoring the Generalplan Ost, but although reproductive experiments in Auschwitz were financed through the DFG, it did not consider whether an apology to surviving victims of Carl Clauberg sterilised at Auschwitz is due. Bringing the memorial to the attention of living victims would have been possible. In time the only vestige of a life becomes the official record, and in cases of persons sterilised there can (unless medically reversed) be no biological offspring. This raises the failure of German and Austrian authorities to attempt to reverse the effects of sterilisation after WW2, and to provide medical assistance for the consequences of such experimentation.


et al.

Page 8


There is no international standard as regards historical research on victims and victims’ commemoration, but the situation is more restrictive in the Federal Republic than in other countries and most restrictive of all towards the victims of psychiatric experimentation. In one important respect, the psychiatric victims may differ from other victims of human experiments. This is that the other victims were healthy until infected, or otherwise experimented on, or killed. The psychiatric victims were under treatment and entitled to confidentiality as a patient, just as they were entitled to life-enhancing care. But the brutal persecution and killing speaks in favour of restoring the victims’ identities, and naming is essential Turning to the situation in other countries, it should be noted in Vienna the Spiegelgrund child victims of “euthanasia” have been commemorated by name. Privacy matters are handled differently in each Austrian province, and the city of Vienna took the courageous decision to name these child victims. The naming went with dignified burial at the Zentralfriedhof and a memorial individuating each victim at the Otto-Wagner-Spital. In the UK and USA privacy ends with a person’s death, so that there are no legal restrictions on the naming of victims. As ethical standards vary as regards medical records, there is an obligation on researchers to act responsibly. The difficulty one is placed in as a historian is how it might be ethical to consider the victims of “euthanasia” as subjects of historical research. In effect it might mean that persons having been once exploited, injured and murdered for research, causing immense distress to families, might again become the object of an academic research exercise. Ironically, “research” is the one reason that permits access to these records, even those records of persons born in the mid-nineteenth-century. Naming therefore requires appropriate responsibility, and as in full sympathy with victims. There are ethical and moral reasons for conducting such research as in the interests of the persons killed.


Peiffer showed a dignified sense of critical responsibility in a professional group, in his case for neuro-pathology. The same may be said for institutions for which the research has a moral role in acknowledging responsibility in the past. In the case of the Max Planck Gesellschaft this responsibility has only partially been resolved, as despite the important apology delivered by its then President, Markl, the critically important collections of the MPG for Psychiatry remain never fully evaluated.29 Authors need to ask whether anonymisation remains necessary and right, and should state reasons for anonymisation in any publication. Certainly, anonymisation – or simply leaving a memorial without names - should be a matter for greater reflection than until now. The author takes the view that victims should ideally have a full name restored to them. But also when not right for ethical or legal reasons for particular persons, or when the name is simply no longer recoverable, this should be stated. A similar concern arises as regards the body parts held by medical and research institutions. Rather than rapidly divesting themselves of their problematic heritage without identification, a full analysis should be undertaken of how these came to be held, and for what purposes they were exploited. Jona Laks, a survivor of Mengele’s twin research, believes every person is entitled to their name.30 The restoration of


et al.

Page 9

names to victims of psychiatric research and scientifically enforced killing has yet to happen.

Acknowledgment My thanks to Volker Roelcke and Wolfgang Eckart for advice and literature


References


1. Schwarberg, G. Meine zwanzig Kinder. Steidl; Göttingen: 1996. 2. Weindling, P. Genetik und Menschenversuche in Deutschland 1940-1960. Hans Nachtsheim, die Kaninchen von Dahlem und die Kinder vom Bullenhuser Damm”. In: Schmuhl, H-W., editor. Rassenforschung an Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten vor und nach 1933. Wallstein Verlag; Göttingen: 2003. p. 245-274. 3. For further information please contact the author. 4. Aly, G. Reform und Gewissen. “Euthanasie” im Dienst des Fortschritts. Rotbuch Verlag; Berlin: 1985. Der saubere und der schmutzige Fortschritt; p. 9-78. 5. Berichte der Kommission zur Überprüfung der Präparatesammlungen in den medizinischen Einrichtungen der Universität Tübingen im Hinblick auf Opfer des Nationalsozialismus. Universität Tübingen; 1989. 6. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Dec 19. 1990 Trauerfeier für Präparate von NS-Opfern. 7. Felix Sommer: Anatomie, in: Eckart, WU.; Sellin, V.; Wolgast, E., editors. Die Universität Heidelberg im Nationalsozialismus. Heidelberg; 2006. p. 651-670. 8. Volker Roelcke to author, July 2010 9. Cranach, M.; Siemen, H. Die Bayerischen Heil- und Pflegeanstalten zwischen 1933 und 1945. Oldenbourg; Munich: Ernst Lossa: Eine Krankengeschichte; p. 475-84. 10. Weindling, P. From Scientific Object to Commemorated Victim: the Children of the Spiegelgrund. MPI f Wissenschaftsgeschichte; 2010. preprint 11. Klee, E. Deutsche Medizin im Dritten Reich. S. Fischer; Frankfurt: 2001. p. 116 12. Weindling, Paul. “Deadly Medicine”, (essay review). Social History of Medicine. 2008; 21:208– 212. 13. [accessed 1 August 2010] http://www.iaapa.org.il/46024/Claims#germanhttp://www.iaapa.org.il/ 46024/Claims#german 14. Fuchs, P.; Rotzoll, M.; Müller, U.; Richter, P.; Hohendorf, G. “Das Vergessen der Vernichtung ist ein Teil der Vernichtung selbst”: Lebensgeschichten von Opfern der nationalsozialistischen “Euthanasie”. Wallstein; Göttingen: 2007. 15. Benzenhöfer, U. Der Fall Leipzig (alias Fall “Kind Knauer”) und die Planung der NS“Kindereuthanasie”. Klemm; Münster: 2008. 16. Lang, H. Die Namen der Nummern. Hofmann; Hamburg: 2004. 17. Weindling, Paul. Nazi Medicine and the Nuremberg Trials. Palgrave; Basingstoke: 2000. 18. Mitscherlich, A.; Mielke, F. Wissenschaft ohne Menschlichkeit. Schneider; Heidelberg: 1949. 19. Platen-Hallermund, A. Die Tötung Geisteskranker in Deutschland. Frankfurter Hefte; Frankfurt: 1948. 20. The Nuremberg Medical Trial 1946/47. Transcripts, Material of the Prosecution and Defense. Related Documents. English Edition, On Behalf of the Stiftung für Sozialgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts Edited By Klaus Dörner, Angelika Ebbinghaus and Karsten Linne, in cooperation with Karlheinz Roth and Paul Weindling. Microfiche Edition (Munich: Saur 1999). 21. Aleksandra Loewenau to author, July 2010 citing data from Okręgowa komisja badania zbrodni niemieckich w katowicaca ref 149 22. Mundt, C.; Hohendorf, G.; Rotzoll, M., editors. Psychiatrische Forschung und NS Euthanasie. Beiträge zu einer Gedenkversanstaltung an der Psychiatrischen Universitätsklinik Heidelberg; Heidelberg: 2001.


et al.

Page 10


23. Peschke F. Die Heidelberg-Wieslocher Forschungsabteilung Carl Schneider’s im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Schriftenreihe des Arbeitskreises “Die Heil und Pflegeanstalt Wiesloch in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus”. 1993; 2:42–77. 75. note 18. 24. Peschke, ‘Forschungsabteilung’ 25. Czech, H.; Neugebauer, W. Dr. Heinrich Gross: die “wissenschaftliche” Verwertung der NSKindereuthanasie: die Gehirnpräparatesammlung im Psychiatrischen Krankenhaus der Stadt Wien. In: Senat der Universität Wien. , editor. Untersuchungen zur Anatomischen Wissenschaft in Wien 1938–1945. Vienna: 1998. p. 477-500. 26. Peschke, Forschungsabteilung, 63 27. Peiffer J. Wissenschaftliches Erkenntnisstreben als Tötungsmotiv? Ergebnisse. History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in the National Socialist Era. 2005; 23 28. Peiffer J. Wissenschaftliches Erkenntnisstreben als Tötungsmotiv? Ergebnisse. History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in the National Socialist Era. 2005; 23:6. 29. Markl, H. Die ehrlichste Art der Entschuldigung ist die Offenlegung der Schuld. In: Sachse, C., editor. Die Verbindung nach Auschwitz. Biowissenschaften und Menschenversuche an KaiserWilhelm-Instituten. Wallstein; Göttingen: 2003. p. 41-51. 30. Laks, J. Jeder Mensch hat einen Namen. In: Sachse, C., editor. Die Verbindung nach Auschwitz. Biowissenschaften und Menschenversuche an Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten. Wallstein; Göttingen: 2003. p. 329

Europe PMC Funders Author Manuscripts Psychiatrie (Stuttg). Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 23.

The victims of unethical human experiments and coerced research under National Socialism.

German urologists under national socialism.

[Compulsory sterilization: the psychiatric hospital of Klagenfurt under national socialism].

[Dermatology in National Socialism].

Has socialism failed? An analysis of health indicators under socialism.

Ethical dimensions of optimizing human intelligence.

Some Medico-Legal Cases under State and National Laws.

Legal and ethical issues. Ethical and legal dilemmas of battered women.

Legal and ethical issues of uterus transplantation.

'Legal highs' - what's in a name?

[Resistance and victims among medics during national socialism].

Legal dimensions of the psychiatric halfway house.

Ethical and legal issues in mitochondrial transfer.

Assisted reproduction: Ethical and legal issues.

Antiprogestin drugs: ethical, legal and medical issues.

Ethical problems to merit the name.

Legal dimensions of maternal-fetal conflict.

Ethical and legal issues in palliative care.

Legal and ethical challenges in brain death.

Prolonging life: legal, ethical, and social dilemmas.

Ovum donation: ethical and legal aspects.

Ethical scores for animal experiments.

[VSRN Annual Spring Congress shows - "radiology in national socialism"].

Legal and ethical implications of fetal diagnosis and gene therapy.