Premature Burial and How It May Be Prevented

by William Tebb; Edward Perry Vollum

“Men have recovered from simulated death after being in the sea twenty minutes, and I see no reason why, after disease, men may not also be recovered from a state resembling death. Many who are left as dead are only in fainting fits, some are in trances; and graves have been opened where the buried man has been found to have eaten portions of his own flesh, which of course he could not have done unless recovery had taken place. How horrible to think that we may awake up in our graves tormented with the pangs of hunger, unable scarce to breathe, and finding all escape from our narrow cell impossible; the prisoner in his grave has nought to do but to commend his soul afresh to his Maker, and lay himself down to die! May not much of this be prevented by asylums for doubtful life, by the application of reagents, and by building vaults in our cemeteries instead of graves? I earnestly hope that the day has arrived when we see these things in the proper light; when our church-yards will be no longer overloaded with the remains of those who, perhaps, might have lived had they been left a little longer above ground—had they been transfused, or even buried in vaults instead of graves, with a guardian to watch over their mortal remains! Life may exist, but not be evident; but the non-evidence of life is no proof of death, as many have been recovered in whom life was only latent—in whom there was no action of the heart, no respiration, no motion, no sensation. This has happened after drowning, in infants born asphyxiated, in women after flooding, and would happen much more often were the proper means applied in all cases to recall life, and to ascertain those who may be recoverable. Simple inspection is not enough to decide if a man be dead or not, because persons are often only in trances or fainting fits when they are thought to be dead; and I wish to insist on the fact that there is no sign of death but decomposition, and that, therefore, none should be buried until this sign be present, nor until an attestation of the presence of decomposition be given by some surgeon.”

Referring to the universal fear of burying relatives alive, the Lancet, September 20, 1845, vol. ii., p. 321, observed:—“It is but little use to descant upon an evil without pointing out a remedy. In Frankfort, Munich, and in various other towns, houses, properly situated, have been fitted up for the temporary reception of the dead. Corpses are there deposited immediately after death, and taken care of until the signs of decomposition have become unequivocal, medical assistance being at hand should symptoms of vitality manifest themselves. By this simple plan all the objections which attend on the retention of the dead in the dwellings of the poor may be obviated, and at the same time their dread of burying their relatives whilst still alive respected. This plan is evidently much preferable to that which is followed in France. In the latter country, in the large towns, there is in every district a medical inspector of the dead. The inspector is informed of the death as soon as it has taken place, and within a very limited time is bound to inspect the body and give a formal certificate. This guarantee having been obtained, the inhumation of the deceased is enforced by law within two or three days of the death. Notwithstanding this precaution, cases have occurred, even during the last few years, which appear to prove that inhumation has taken place before life was quite extinct. We doubt, also, whether such early interment could under any circumstances be enforced in our own country. Some modification of the German plan is evidently what we must look for in any system of legislation which may hereafter be decided on.” These admirable suggestions from the leading medical journal were made more than half a century ago; since that time, every year has brought to light cases of living burial, and confirmed the urgent need of reform; but nothing has been done until quite recently to awaken public attention to their importance. The subject is of such a gruesome, unpleasant, and depressing character that few people care to have their names associated with a movement of this character, beneficent though it is, and certain to save thousands of unfortunate people, particularly women and children (who are more especially liable to various forms of suspended animation), from such tragic occurrences.

The Undertakers’ and Funeral Directors’ Journal, August 22, 1895, referring to the fact that in 1892 thirty-one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two inquests were held in England, and to the urgent necessity for the erection of mortuaries, says:—

EVERYWHERE NEEDED.

“The bountiful, or private enterprise, should provide these mortuaries. But once let their necessity be recognised and the scheme approved,—fashion leading the way,—then undertakers would readily supply what was wanted. If not, then the local authority should take the initiative. Mortuaries are sadly needed almost everywhere for present purposes, as newspapers constantly affirm. In providing them, care should be taken to build with an eye to future requirements when it shall become customary if not compulsory to remove the dead from among the living within a reasonable time after death.

“It is merciful sometimes to be inexorable, and what a lot of willing and unnecessary discomfort and risk would be saved were it possible and the practice to find a temporary resting-place for our departed friends till we are ready to carry them befittingly to the tomb.”

MORTUARIES OF LONDON.

Each of the sanitary districts in the Metropolis is supposed to have a mortuary of some kind for the reception of bodies from hospitals, infirmaries, hotels, private houses, as well as from the river and streets, or in transit to and from foreign countries, where they are kept without charge for about five days, unless the public health requires earlier interment. Hospitals, hotels, and families are thus relieved of the presence of corpses, for convenience, and for purposes of inquest. The mortuaries are nearly all plain, gloomy, and depressing structures of brick. The best of them comprise a coroner’s courtroom, coroner’s private room, the caretaker’s rooms, waiting room, post-mortem room, chapel, and viewing room connected. There is no physician in attendance, and no autopsies are performed except by surgeons upon their own cases, or for purposes of inquests. There are no appliances or conveniences for resuscitation, as all the bodies are regarded as dead, having been, for the most part, certified as such by a medical practitioner, the exceptions being such as are taken from the water or street by the police, or left there for inquest. The buildings are usually well lighted, and some of the rooms contain fire-places, but they are devoid of taste or ornamentation of any kind. The bodies are kept in coffins, which, if there is any odour proceeding from them, are screwed down. Permission is afforded for inspection by doctors or by any of the family of the deceased on application to the keeper. These mortuaries are kept clean, and decent and respectful treatment of the bodies is enforced by regulations.

THE LONDON MORTUARIES.

The London County Council issued a return (No. 157) dated March 9, 1894, in pursuance of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, relating to coroners’ courts, mortuaries, etc., from which it appears that there were fifty-one mortuaries in the sanitary districts of London up to September 30, 1893. In most of these the accommodation is described as “sufficient,” “good,” “well arranged,” “excellent,” “convenient.” Others are of an opposite character. The one attached to the Town Hall, Holborn district, is reported as “very small (about nine feet by nine feet), inconvenient, and badly situated.” In the Poplar district the mortuary “is an old crypt, quite unfit for the purpose, and has no convenience for post-mortems.” At Ratcliffe, in the Limehouse district, the mortuary “consists of a railway arch, and is very unsuitable.” “There is a very small mortuary in the church-yard” at Shadwell. The mortuary under the church-yard of St. Martin’s Church (St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields) is reported “very imperfect.” The one in the Southern Coroner’s district is situated under a railway arch, and there is no mortuary-keeper. At St. Paul’s, Deptford, the mortuary contains only one room, which serves for mortuary and post-mortem room. Plumstead is possessed of an underground mortuary in the church-yard, reported as “unsatisfactory.” The Lewisham district has an “unsuitable” mortuary at the cemetery. Rotherhithe has “an inadequate mortuary in the old burial-ground.” At St. George the Martyr (Southwark) the mortuary is reported to be “inadequate and unsuitable.” In the Strand district there is “no proper mortuary, but a small dead-house attached to the Savoy Chapel is used.” Eltham, Lea, and Kidbrooke, in the Plumstead district, have no mortuaries. The part of Lambeth, S. and S.E., up the Clapham and Kennington Park roads, is without a mortuary, and bodies awaiting inquest are kept in private houses. Nor are there any mortuaries in the Greenwich district (Hatcham), Wapping, or Mile End Old Town. Arrangements are reported to be in progress for the enlargement of some of these establishments and the erection of others.