13.07.2015 Views

History of medical practice in Illinois - Bushnell Historical Society

History of medical practice in Illinois - Bushnell Historical Society

History of medical practice in Illinois - Bushnell Historical Society

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

a<strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> Anatomy Laws <strong>in</strong> Ill<strong>in</strong>ois 375modern decrees we gather that the ideas concern<strong>in</strong>g the designation <strong>of</strong> adead body as property are undergo<strong>in</strong>g change. But certa<strong>in</strong>ly dur<strong>in</strong>g the19th century, a strict <strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>of</strong> the concept that there is no ownership<strong>in</strong> a dead human body could not render a culprit, who has exhumedsuch, liable <strong>in</strong> a civil suit for damages. It was necessary to f<strong>in</strong>d that someact, recognized by the law as tortious, had been committed. For example,if an <strong>in</strong>dividual went on the land <strong>of</strong> another to dis<strong>in</strong>ter a body buriedthere, the owner <strong>of</strong> the land could sue for trespass<strong>in</strong>g, or the person wh<strong>of</strong>urnished the c<strong>of</strong>f<strong>in</strong> or the wear<strong>in</strong>g apparel <strong>of</strong> the corpse could br<strong>in</strong>g actionfor damage done to such accoutrements, but noth<strong>in</strong>g more. The onlyremedy lay <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>dictment on such grounds.Mention has already been made <strong>of</strong> the law passed <strong>in</strong> New York <strong>in</strong> 1789which was designed to prevent grave-robb<strong>in</strong>g by provid<strong>in</strong>g that felonssentenced to death shall be delivered to surgeons for dissection. Doubtlesslythis law <strong>in</strong> New York <strong>in</strong>fluenced the enactment <strong>of</strong> laws perta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g tothe same problem <strong>in</strong> neighbor<strong>in</strong>g states. In Connecticut the law <strong>of</strong> 1824made legal the dissection <strong>of</strong> bodies <strong>of</strong> convicts, dy<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> prison, suchdisposition be<strong>in</strong>g subject to the judgment <strong>of</strong> the prison commissionersand depend<strong>in</strong>g, among other considerations, on the nature <strong>of</strong> the crimecommitted by the convict. We have seen that only a year later (1825),the state <strong>of</strong> Ill<strong>in</strong>ois <strong>in</strong> its "Act to prevent the dis<strong>in</strong>terment <strong>of</strong> the dead"<strong>in</strong>cluded a provision whereby the body <strong>of</strong> any crim<strong>in</strong>al shallbe directedto be delivered up for dissection by competent authority. All these laws,it is evident, not only reflected but re<strong>in</strong>forced the popular conception <strong>of</strong>dissection as an additional posthumous punishment. Such penalty, <strong>in</strong> theop<strong>in</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> the laity, made even the subject <strong>of</strong> Anatomy odious; dissection<strong>of</strong> the body <strong>of</strong> a friend or <strong>of</strong> one who was merely poor, or unknown, wouldstigmatize his memory, that is, make him by implication a crim<strong>in</strong>al—sentiment w r hich <strong>in</strong>hibited for a long time the secur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> laws to designatebodies, buried at public expense, for the tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>medical</strong> students.Human society has never resolved fully the paradox <strong>of</strong> its deep-rootedaversion to dissection and its <strong>in</strong>sistent demand <strong>of</strong> anatomical familiarityand pr<strong>of</strong>iciency for its physicians <strong>in</strong> the treatment <strong>of</strong> its bodily ills.It is evident that the anatomical material obta<strong>in</strong>ed legally was wholly<strong>in</strong>sufficient <strong>in</strong> amount for the requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>struction. Fatal duelswere few; nor was the supply <strong>of</strong> bodies <strong>of</strong> dead crim<strong>in</strong>als much greater."A statistical compilation made <strong>in</strong> Massachusetts <strong>in</strong> 1830 showed that fordissected or to be dissected, was astonished to learn that 1 1 bodies had been willed <strong>in</strong>the short period <strong>of</strong> three years— all <strong>of</strong> them without any effort on the part <strong>of</strong> the schoolto <strong>in</strong>fluence the public toward such an enlightened policy. One wonders how abundantwould be the donations <strong>of</strong> anatomical material if it were to discreetly publicize such aimsand aid to science.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!