The article I have posted below is both desperately sad (the death of a mother from cancer) and truly grisly, and it contains a dispiriting twist.
Although examples of the arrogance and intransigence of Regency medical men are plentiful, I feel they deserve at least some sympathy. No doubt they were driven by their scientific curiosity and a feeling that they were making difficult decisions for the greater good. Certainly the doctor who defends the actions of the surgeons of St. Thomas’s in the story thought so. Perhaps if they had shown a little more compassion to the son at the time they spoke to him, this whole episode would have been avoided.
This story calls to mind one I published earlier, about a bereaved mother distraught at discovering that her son’s body had been opened, dissected and crudely sewn up.
Of course, an assault on the dead wounds only the living. However, it should be remembered that for many Christians, feelings about the integrity of the body were connected to the belief that the dead would need their body parts after the last judgment. This is to say nothing of the awful emotional turmoil after the death of someone close.
Christopher Smith was Lord Mayor in this period. As in the case of the body of the young boy, he showed himself a sensible and sensitive mediator.
The Observer, 7 December 1817
DETAINING AND PICKLING A FEMALE HEAD.
Wednesday, the following strange investigation took place at the Mansion House [London]. A decent looking young man, a seaman, stated to the Lord Mayor that his mother was some months since afflicted with the tooth-ache, in consequence of which she applied to a dentist to extract the troublesome member. The operator, who was not one of the most skilful in his profession, after several unsuccessful attempts to perform the task, broke the tooth in such a manner as to render it impossible to extract the remaining parts. A cancerous affection ensued, and his mother procured admission into St. Thomas’s Hospital. Here everything that human skill could devise was done for her, but in vain; she died in excruciating agony a few days since, her head having swelled to an enormous size. At the request of the surgeons, the body was allowed to remain at the hospital till Monday, when it was sent home in a coffin. The applicant, anxious to know if the proper offices had been duly performed to the remains of his mother, contrived, with much difficulty and horror, he found that the head had been severed from the body, and that it was missing! —He went immediately to the hospital, and related the circumstance, but could obtain no satisfactory information, and he was advised to apply to the Lord Mayor on the subject. He therefore applied to his Lordship to assist him in obtaining the restoration of his mother’s head.
The Lord Mayor.— The surgeons are not justified in detaining the head, and should have restored it to you after it had served the purpose of dissection.
A gentleman in the medical line, observed to his Lordship, that he apprehended the professional purposes of the surgeons would not be answered until the head was in pickle.
The Lord Mayor.— This is indeed a very indefensible practice; besides, it will terrify the relatives of patients who die in the hospital, by giving them reason to suppose that when they are following the deceased to their graves, they are following bodies without any heads, or heads without bodies.
The medical man said, the interests of society were paramount; and for his part, if he was going ogg in a disorder little known to practitioners, he would not care into how many pieces he was cut for the benefit of society.
And yet, said the Lord Mayor, although that is the common talk of physicians, I never knew one of the profession who had any inclination to have his bones dangling in an anatomy-room, or his head in a bottle.— The physician observed, that there might be cases of the kind which were concealed in consideration of the prejudices of the weaker sex.
The Lord Mayor.— I don’t know how we can prosecute resurrection men for stealing dead bodies, if such practices are allowed. A thing of this kind is more distressing to the feelings than a church-yard robbery; for our habits are such that we cannot endure the burial of a body piecemeal. Even in a field of battle we should go about and endeavour to collect the mangled limbs of a friend, before we could think of covering an atom of him with earth. At home, then, where the rights of sepulture are attended to so scrupulously, it is barbarous to mangle a body and torture the feelings of a son by keeping the head of his mother for exhibition.
The physician said, that in all probability the case was such as rendered this proceeding of the surgeons indispensable.— The head, it was reported, had by the disease, been swelled to a most enormous magnitude, and was actually too large to be placed in the coffin with the body. This extraordinary circumstance, combined with the disorder which had proved fatal, was likely to render a constant recurrence to the subject necessary. The manner, then, in which it might have been prudent to act, was to substitute the head of another body, which would be just as useful, at the same time that the imposition would be very excusable, & no detection could take place.
The Lord Mayor declared that the surgeons were highly reprehensible in detaining the head. It was notorious that those disturbers of the dead called Resurrection-men, who were in many cases robbers of the living, were in the habit of serving the hospital with subjects, and it would now appear as if the surgeons intended to vie with them in their trade, against which the public had so great a horror.
The seaman said he had often seen death in its most frightful shapes, and had given many of his companions graves in distant parts of the world, where there was not much care whether bodies were buried or not; and in fact he was indifferent in case of his own death whether or not he should undergo that ceremony; but it was different with his mother; & he should go to hospital, and stay there until his demand was agreed to, whatever reception he should meet with, even if they were to take it into their heads to cut off his own.
The Lord Mayor said he felt convinced, that when the surgeons should consider the cruelty of persisting in their refusal there could no longer be any hesitation. His Lordship ordered Cartwright, the marshalman, to attend the seaman to St. Thomas’s, and inquire the cause of the conduct complained of.
Upon his return, Cartwright astonished the whole office, by saying that he heard at the hospital that the seaman’s father had sold the head for 1l. [£1] to the surgeons. He said, the poor son acknowledged he had been present when the bargain was made, but that he abhorred the proposal of the disposing of the head at any price.
Leave a Reply