I’ve mentioned it before (and there is no reason to
suppose that I won’t mention it again in the future), but it wasn’t until the
17th Century that any real progress was made in medicinal knowledge
because medicine, like many other fields of knowledge, was hide-bound by the
scholastic legacy of the Ancients. Doctors were, more or less, obediently and
unthinkingly basing their practices on the writings and theories of such
Ancient Greek authors as Galen, Avicenna or Hippocrates.
Galen, Avicenna and Hippocrates |
There was some small
progress by the odd individual, and the odd remarkable breakthrough, but it
wasn’t until the Age of the Enlightenment that things really began change. The
great leap forward began with such empiricists as Francis Bacon, men who were
not satisfied with simply reading what had been written two millennia
previously but who observed, experimented and questioned, seeking answers for
themselves.
Sir Francis Bacon |
Bacon famously wrote that ‘knowledge is power’ and it was the
search for knowledge that gave doctors the power to treat their patients much
more efficiently. The basis of all medical and surgical knowledge comes
ultimately from the study of anatomy. Disease is, essentially, disordered
function and disordered function cannot be treated without knowledge of healthy
function, which, in turn, cannot be understood without knowledge of structure,
and structure cannot be understood unless it is examined. You cannot ‘guess’ anatomy; it has to
be studied and examined.
Let’s say you have a pain in your right shoulder. You
might think that maybe it’s due to sleeping badly or perhaps straining yourself
when lifting something awkwardly and in most cases you’d be right, but it could
also be a symptom that there is something wrong with, say, your liver. Why?
Nerves |
Because the right phrenic nerve has a branch to the liver, and the third
cervical nerve, from which the phrenic nerves arise, extends into the shoulder.
In what is called ‘referred pain’, a disorder in one part of the body actually
produces pain in a different part of the body –but you couldn’t guess
that a dodgy liver is giving you gip in your right shoulder. You’d need to know
about the physical structure of the nerves. And to do that, you’d need to see
them. And to do that, until very recently, you’d need to get yourself a body.
Preferably a dead one. Now, in the past, this was a bit of a problem.
Brughel - The Triumph of Death |
The
Church, for instance, wasn’t too keen on the idea, not least because you’d need
your body at the Final Trump when you’d be raised out of your grave for the
Final Judgement (and diseases were caused by the Devil anyway, so why did you
need to study anatomy when theology was much more efficacious). And the
populace also thought that they might need their bodies again at some time in
the future. The bodies of condemned criminals were sometimes made available for
dissection (following the 1752 Murder Act) but the former judicial zeal for
executions for the most trivial of offences had started to wane by then and
capital sentences had fallen to about fifty per year in Victorian days, but the
medical and anatomy schools needed around about ten times that amount. So the
necessary deficit was made up by the Resurrection Men, a class of criminals
that dug up freshly buried corpses and sold them to the doctors.
Resurrectionists at work |
It was an odd
crime really, as the theft of a body was a misdemeanour at common law
punishable by a fine or imprisonment (or a whipping in Scotland), rather than
being a felony, which carried the punishment of either the death penalty or
transportation for life. The authorities tended, on the whole, to turn a blind
eye, providing that the body snatchers were not too blatant, and considered the
whole sorry business to be somewhat of a necessary evil. The public did try, by
a variety of methods, to deter the thefts; cemeteries were patrolled by
watchmen with guard dogs at night, lookout towers were erected in them, or iron
cages, called mort safes, were built over graves and sunk deep into the
soil.
Mort safes |
Popular public sentiment was almost entirely hostile to the
Resurrectionists, painting them as fearsome, ruthless ghouls and the lowest of
the criminal low. The doctors were in terrible bind – they needed the bodies
for dissection, in order to train future members of the profession.
Objectively, only good could come from the anatomy schools, and mankind as a whole
stood to benefit. But without a steady supply of specimens, they had no other
recourse but to deal with the criminals. This led to the public tarring the
medical profession with the same brush, and tales, often unsubstantiated, were
circulated of unscrupulous surgeons getting up to all manner of Frankensteinish
behaviour.
Snatching a Body |
There were a number of sensational cases that kept the practice of
grave robbing firmly in the public gaze (more of which over the next couple of
days), but perhaps one of the oddest stories was reported in the Northampton
Mercury of November 2nd 1811, which told how the whole corps of
London resurrectionists went on strike for a price increase of one guinea per
body, following the success of a similar action in the previous year, raising
the overall cost of a cadaver from three guineas to five guineas! The situation
changed following the passing of the 1832 Anatomy Act, when greater licence was
given to the medical schools, allowing them more access to legitimate
specimens. In addition to executed criminals, unclaimed bodies from workhouses
and prisons could then be used in dissections, as well as donated corpses from
the next of kin (usually in return for the cost of burial later).
Body Snatching - 1824 |
There is an
excellent anonymous pamphlet of 1824, reprinted from the Westminster Review,
entitled Body Snatching, which puts forward a sober, considered case for
the practice of anatomical dissection, presenting the benefits of a sensible
approach to this delicate subject and, rightly, pointing out that the illegal
recourse to the body snatchers could be eliminated overnight if the provision
of corpses was properly licensed and administered. There was some sentimental
public opposition to the proposals but a couple of particularly grisly cases
altered the opinions of many people and the Act eventually passed on the
Statute Books and, as predicted, the resurrection men were condemned to the
pages of history.
No comments:
Post a Comment