Anatomy laws versus body-snatching.

  • Dwight, Thomas, 1843-1911.
Date:
[1896]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Anatomy laws versus body-snatching. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    8/10 (page 500)
    that one cannot doubt that, till within a few years, the state of affairs has been scandalous. A marked improvement has been general in the last twelve years, due largely to the passage, in 1883, of the Pennsyl- vania law—since imitated in many States—creating a receiving and distributing board, which gives each institution its due share of sub- jects. In reading the laws of various States it is very curious to find how often the heading of the act contains the statement that it is for the better protection of the grave; as if its violation were, like the ravages of the gypsy moth, one of the misfortunes to which nature is liable. Eeckless body-snatching is, I believe, now unknown, except in the wilder parts of the West; but probably in many places bodies are illegally taken which, in a more enlightened community would, as a matter of course, be granted for the purposes of medical instruction. I was particularly struck with the peculiar condition of affairs in one State, as shown by the answers to our cii'cular. Subjects were plenti- ful, they were cheap, they were received in good condition; yet there was no law authorizing dissection, and, what is more remarkable, there ^ seemed to be none protecting graves. Truly a comfortable place for anatomists, though not one of the most respectable arrangements I The business of the dealer in bodies is not what it has been, but it is still larger than it should be. This is a source of danger. The mere fact that a man is engaged in such a business suggests the suspicion that he may not be over-nice in choosing his sources of sujDply: doubts arise whether, under the stress of circumstances, he might not go to considerable lengths rather than disappoint a valuable client. Such conditions are, moreover, injurious to the schools in the same State, to which the bodies should properly go,—assuming, of course, that they are unclaimed. Nearly all the States have now anatomy laws; but there is great variation in their nature and enforcement. In many States the law is simply permissive, and in these, of which Massa- chusetts is unfortunately one, the supply is much hampered by the prejudices, the superstition, the timidity of superintendents and boards of management. Many officials live in a state of terror of the dema- gogue, which is truly pitiful; for the cry of desecration of the bodies of the poor is one of the tricks of his trade, and officials may weU hesitate to involve themselves in difficulties for the sake of what is to them an abstract question. This condition is not unlike that men- tioned by Puschmann as existing in Europe two centuries ago. In some States the law is apparently meant to be evaded. Legis- lation in Maine is notoriously peculiar. The anatomy act, besides