Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

ticularly in infants, in which life seems to have been saved by the advice given. There are cases, in which, having the means at hand, it might be dangerous to wait; and there are others in which the quick method of travel would be hazardous from its fatigue.

II. THE NON-NECESSITY OF ANY RADICAL CHANGE

IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF DISPOSAL

OF THE DEAD.

BY GEORGE H. ROHÉ, M. D.

Following the lead of some supposed sanitary authorities, many medical men and a small but enthusiastic minority of the general public have of late years expressed views decidedly antagonistic to the time-honored custom of burial in the earth as a measure for the disposal of the dead. As a remedy for certain admitted evils connected with interment, incineration is proposed. It may be worth while to examine the question whether cremation is really an unobjectionable substitute for our present method of disposal of the bodies of those who have paid the debt of nature.

The first argument usually advanced in favor of cremation is one that should receive the most careful attention and have great weight in deciding the question. It is asserted with much positiveness that decaying bodies primarily pollute the soil in which they are buried, and that secondarily the ground water and ground air are necessarily contaminated with the products of organic decomposition.

The further inference is then drawn that the ground water rendered impure in this manner, gains entrance to springs or wells and contaminates the sources of our drinking water, and so gives rise to insanitary conditions, or positive disease. The air over burial grounds, being assumedly charged with the gaseous products of decomposition is also accused of being a cause of unhealthiness.

In spite of the general impression of the unfavorable influence of the vicinity of cemeteries upon the health of the living, there is very little trustworthy evidence upon this point. The often quoted example of the Cimitiere des Innocents in Paris, and of some of the intra-mural burial grounds of London cannot be accepted as absolute conclusive. And even if it were positively established that overcrowded and badly managed burial grounds are a menace to the health of those living near them, the objection would not be valid against properly conducted methods of earth burial.

One of the gases produced in largest quantity by decaying corpses is carbon dioxide, and yet Smolensky found that in one of the old cemeteries of Munich the percentage of carbon dioxide in the ground air was less than half of that found in the soil of a place used for the deposit of offal of various kinds. Pettenkofer was so little impressed by the supposed deleterious influence of the gases of decay that he selected the cemetery above referred to as the site of the new Hygienic Institute of Munich.

The generally observed good health of workmen in cemeteries and and knackeries contradicts the opinion that the gaseous emanations from decaying animal matter are necessarily dangerous to health. Many workmen so employed are quite ready to testify to the contrary, although such testimony would not perhaps be considered as trustworthy evidence.*

Experiments of Buchner, Nægeli and others have shown that micro-organisms are not moved by air currents if the organisms are attached to a moist surface. It is only when both the organisms and the surface upon which they are resting are quite dry that they are readily taken up and carried hither and thither in currents of air. This would indicate the difficulty of conveying the germs of any disease from a decaying cadaver. An observation of Miquel is recorded which has likewise a bearing upon this point. He found that the air of the Parisian cemeteries was only slightly richer in bacteria than the air at the observatory of Montsouris, while the air of the city of Paris contained these organisms in a vastly greater proportion.

Similar results have been obtained when the water from wells in or near cemeteries has been examined. Such wells, as a rule, furnish water of equal or greater purity to that obtained from places inhabited by human beings and where the soil is more or less polluted.

*Let me add a few facts which are well established, and which may be readily verified by reference to sanitary publications.

At the Oimitiere des Innocents in Paris in 1785-86, more than a thousand corpses in all stages of decomposition were exhumed. No evil effects from breathing this contaminated air were observed in the workmen or those living in the vicinity.

At the Pere la Chaise in the same city, over 200 exhumations are made every year at varying periods after interment. No bad results have been noticed in the grave diggers. During and after the Franco-Prussian war exhumations were conducted on a large scale. The records are silent as to any ill effects upon the workmen.-Blyth; Dictionary of Hygiene.

In an English blue book published on this subject in 1850, many instances are quoted where grave diggers had pursued their avocations from ten to twenty-two years, without experiencing any ill effects therefrom.

There is abundant negative testimony, likewise, in the demonstrable absence of any especial tendency to disease in persons who constantly consume such drinking water. A paper by Dr. J. F. A. Adams, published in the Mass. State Board of Health Report for 1875, gives strong testimony to this view. The facts recorded by Dr. Adams can hardly fail to convince any unprejudiced reader of the very intangi ble nature of the evidence relied upon by those who offer cremation as a rational substitute for inhumation on sanitary grounds.

The advocates of incineration further claim that certain infectious diseases, such as cholera, typhoid fever, measles, small pox, scarlet fever, and diphtheria may be communicated through the air, water, or soil polluted by the corpses of those dead with the diseases mentioned. This claim has been so persistently made that it will probably cause some surprise when I state that no trustworthy observavations are on record which would afford a safe basis for such a conclusion. The many opportunities for infection by this channel which have been furnished by destructive epidemics of yellow fever, smallpox, cholera, diphtheria and typhus fever have hitherto remained unimproved by the respective diseases. Most of the observations quoted as evidence by writers to prove the dangers of burial during epidemics, lack accuracy and hence cannot be relied upon. The same authors neglect wholly the strong negative testimony which the epidemics of yellow fever in Savannah in 1876, and of Memphis and New Orleans in 1878 and 1879 furnished against the danger of cemetery burial in times of epidemic. I am prepared to maintain that the greatest violence of the disease in the above epidemics was not manifested in the vicinity of the cemeteries. Of the small-pox epidemic in this city in 1883, the same could be asserted.

It is further claimed by its advocates that cremation would be an economical measure if substituted for burial. This claim is an absurd one for the cost of a burial or an incineration is what those who conduct it choose to make it. I venture to say that the cost of the services within the crematorium at Lancaster or at Brooklyn will be fully as great as the expense of a first-class funeral within the gates of Greenmount or Baltimore cemeteries. The cost of reaching the cemetery is an incidental item and cannot properly be included in the total.

The third advantage claimed for cremation likewise falls to the ground when examined in the light of experience. During times of the epidemic prevalence of disease, it is said, the bodies of the dead

can be more rapidly and effectually disposed of by burning than by burial. A brief calculation will at once show the fallacy of this. In an epidemic of cholera the number of deaths daily might very greatly exceed the ordinary daily death-rate. It must be evident that the crematory "plant" sufficient for ordinary uses would be totally inadequate during an epidemic. The average number of deaths daily in this city during the past year was a fraction under 23. Under the best conditions at present attainable, probably at least four cremation furnaces would be necessary to properly dispose of these. But suppose an epidemic of cholera or yellow fever, and a rise in the deathrate to one hundred or more per day, would it be possible to reduce to ashes all these bodies with the arrangements for ordinary (may I be permitted to say "every day") use?

On the other hand does any one suppose that a community would prepare for such a contingency by sinking a fund in furnaces that might or might not be used for the incineration of human bodies, but which could be applied to no other useful purpose whatever?

It is also claimed that in time of war cremation would be a more rapid and effective method of disposing of those killed in action than burial. On the battle-field of Sedan this was attempted, but with a conspicuous want of success. The perambulatory crematorium recommended by Mr. Eassie for use in the field, will probably not be added to the quartermaster's stores of our armies during the present century.

I have shown, I think, that the advantages claimed for cremation over burial are illusory. But there are positive objections which outweigh all the advantages claimed. In cases of criminal poisoning cremation would destroy all evidence of the crime, and the ends of justice would be defeated.

This is a fatal objection to the general adoption of this method of disposing of the dead.

I have not touched upon the sentimental phase of the question. And yet, this is a point of view which cannot be ignored. The overwhelming majority of the people are tenacious of old customs, and advocacy of general cremation gives their conservatism a rude shock. It may be conceded that the ancient funeral pyre is a more poetic way of consuming the dead body than the slow consumption going on in the grave; but there is a vast difference between the throne of fire whence were scattered the ashes of Sardanapalus, and an ordinary furnace blast, "fired up" like the blast in an iron foundry.

« PředchozíPokračovat »