I must here repeat what I have already said regarding Sir H. Thompson’s intimation that part of the bodies about to be cremated might be conserved for future examination: The strong dislike of the public would never allow of such a measure.
Lord Bramwell, the eminent English lawyer, in a letter to Sir Spencer Wells concerning incineration, states: “I wish you success in the promotion of cremation; I think it is right, and what is very rare, with no drawback. It is the cheapest, the most wholesome, and to my mind, the least repulsive way of disposing of the dead and those we have loved. That it is legal there is not a doubt. The only objection, that murders might go undetected, I believe to be more than unfounded. You have surrounded the thing with precautions. I have heard it suggested that there are many murders which escape detection for want of suspicion and consequent inquiry. How that may be I know not, but it will not be the case with those bodies cremated under the regulations of the Cremation Society of England. The English society requires such undoubted proofs of natural death that a criminal would not dare trust his victim to the flames.”
THE BUFFALO CREMATORIUM.
(Interior View.)
To cut a long story short, let me say that cremationists meet the medico-legal objection by a demand for a careful inquest over every dead body, and a post-mortem examination, including a chemical analysis of all the viscera, in every instance where death by toxic agents is suspected.
In many cities of Europe the dead are examined by physicians appointed by the government. The result has been that, as for instance in Dresden, Leipsic, and Frankfort, Germany, no exhumation took place after the inquest became obligatory and was practiced in every instance of decease.
In Bavaria, Saxony, Nassau, and Baden, there are regular coroners whose duty it is to inspect every corpse, while in England the coroner’s jury only convenes in cases where the cause of death is not apparent.
With us the office of coroner is not an important one. Generally laymen are appointed to it, men who have done some work at that awful power, the political machine. This is wrong. The office of coroner should only be vested in medical men, and only in such who have shown that they are qualified to fill such a position of consequence. Every candidate for coroner should be examined in forensic medicine and pathology, and should give an ocular demonstration of his capability to make a thorough autopsy. Only those who have graduated from a medical school of repute, recognized by law and all the boards of health of the country, should be eligible.
The coroner should have power to demand an explanation of the cause of death from the physician who attended the deceased in his last illness, and whenever such explanation is unsatisfactory, or there are other reasons which lead him to suspect that the defunct has been foully dealt with, to order a complete post-mortem examination. He should, furthermore, have the right to summon before him any witnesses whose testimony might clear up the case in hand.
The coroner should issue the burial permits, the health officer being notified only when persons have died of an infectious or contagious disease.