344

CREMATION AND THE CONCEALMENTOF CRIME.

IN a lecture on the Disposal of the Dead, witl

Special Reference to Cremation, recently deliveredbefore the Royal Institute of Public Health, Dr,H. T. HERRING, who is the medical referee to theGolders Green and Woking Crematoria, dealt withvarious objections to the practice of cremation.While this now well-established practice has not yetentirely disarmed popular antagonisms which in partare based upon genuine religious feeling and in partupon ancient prejudices, its advocates are aware thatthey have to reckon with one substantial objection-namely, the fact that incineration of the bodyobliterates all traces of crime. Against this objectionit may fairly be argued that the present system of thelaw of death certification, which we hope soon to seeamended,1 is so lax that a murderer is but littleinconvenienced in obtaining the burial of his victimunder the existing facilities. In all murder casesthe criminal is anxious not only to conceal his ownpart in the death, but also to conceal the facts ofdeath itself. Where this is the position, questions ofthe relative advantages of graveyard and crematoriumare immaterial. In other cases-for example, in theseries of murders by arsenical poisoning in recent years-it looks as though the criminal was sufficientlydeterred from taking advantage of the method ofcremation by the very stringent precautions which the State enjoins and the very searching interrogatories which the adoption of that method entails. The Cremation Act of 1902, passed nearly 20 years

after Mr. Justice STEPHEN had decided that cremationwas not illegal, authorised the Home Secretary (or inScotland the Secretary for Scotland) to make regula-tions as to the construction and inspection of crema-toria and as to the conditions in which the burning ofhuman remains may take place. The Home OfficeRegulations of 1903 prohibited cremation except in acrematorium of the opening of which official noticehad been given. They forbade the burning ofunidentified human remains or of the body of anyone who has left a written direction to the contrary. The

necessary forms and certificates to be filled up are mostelaborate. Apart from the simpler procedure where acoroner gives a certificate following the verdict of acoroner’s jury, the requisite action is as follows.A form of application is filled up by the executor ornearest surviving relative ; if anyone else is the appli-cant he has to give a satisfactory explanation of thereason why the executor or next-of-kin has not applied.Two medical certificates are required, one from thedoctor who attended the deceased during his lastillness and can definitely certify the cause of death,the other a confirmatory certificate by a speciallyqualified medical practitioner. Both the application(which has to be supported by a statutory declaration)and the former of the two certificates must give aspecific answer to the question whether there is anyreason to suspect that death was directly or indirectlydue to violence, poison, privation, or neglect. The

application and the two certificates are quasi-judiciallyexamined by a specially qualified medical referee whocan refer them back for further information. Themedical referee is forbidden to allow cremation unlesssatisfied that the fact and cause of death are satis- factorily ascertained ; if it appears that death mighthave been due to violence, an illegal operation,privation, or neglect, he must require a post-mortem

1 See the summary of the proposed Bill in THE LANCET ofJan. 12th p. 92.

examination ; if the post mortem fails to reveal thecause of death there must be an inquest. Finally themedical referee may refuse cremation without statingany reason. These Regulations of 1903 have beenrecalled in seme detail to show their reassuringcharacter. In 1920 they were revised and re-issued, butonly three modifications were found necessary. Oneof these alterations empowered the Home Secretary torelax the procedure in certain cases of death outsideEngland and on certain conditions. Another allowedthe Home Secretary to dispense with an inquest incertain cases. A third exacted more information fromthe medical attendant of the deceased. In additionto stating the primary and secondary causes of deathas formerly, he is now obliged to say whether any othercause, and if so what, contributed to or accelerateddeath ; his certificate also now includes a declarationin the widest terms that there is no circumstance of

any sort known to him which makes cremationundesirable.

If anyone, ’reading the Home Office Regulationsand the wording of the forms and certificates, thinksthem insufficient for the purpose, he will still find ithard to imagine how they could be made more com-prehensive. The burden of investigation is properlylaid upon the medical profession ; it has not been

suggested that there has been failure to discharge theresponsibility. The ingenuity of criminals and the

fallibility of human beings make it impossible to claimthat the machinery eliminates all risk that cremationwill allow crime to go undetected. But, short of re-pealing the Cremation Act and making cremationentirely illegal, it is difficult to devise safeguards moresatisfactory than those which at present exist.

PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF RADIUMAND X RAYS.

THE scanty literature of this subject has beenenriched lately in a paper by Dr. J. C. MOTTRAMand Dr. W. CBAMEB in the Quarterly Journal of Experi-mental Physiology (Vol. XIII., Nos. 3 and 4), and bya series of articles in Vol. VII. of the CollectedReprints from the George Williams Hooper Founda-tion for Medical Research, by Mr. S. L. WARREN,Dr. G. K. WHIPPLE, and Dr. I. MCQUARRIE of Cali-fornia University. The first paper deals with theeffects of exposing rats to the beta and gamma raysof radium, the special points under investigationbeing the effect upon metabolism and tumour growthand some special action upon the testis and pituitary.When rats were given comparatively small doses ofradiation, repeated over 40 days, they became fatterand grew inoculated sarcoma less than controls :this is confirmatory of the general findings of Russ.CHAMBERS, and SCOTT in the case of rats and ofSUGUIRA and FAILLA in the case of mice, but thepresent authors observed the very significant factsthat in the irradiated rats there was atrophy of theseminiferous tubules with increase of the interstitialcells, as well as abnormal appearances in the pituitarygland. On irradiating the testis only, the rest of theanimal being protected, atrophy of the testis occurred,yet the weight of the animal increased, this increasebeing attributed by the authors to the formation offat. On giving a relatively large dose of radiationto the head of the animal only, no variation from thenormal was found, and the conclusion seems justifiedthat the pituitary changes previously observed weresecondary. A large part of the paper is devoted tothe histological appearances of the various organs inquestion under various experimental conditions. Asignificant finding was that atrophy of the testisbrought about by irradiation is accompanied withhypertrophy of the interstitial tissue. Dr. MOTTRAMand Dr. CRAMER endeavour to correlate the inter-