|
|
| These days, the supply to furnish medical students with bodies on which to practice anatomical skills works through a donor system. But it wasn't always so easy. School officials had to find their own lines of supply. There was no donor system, perhaps, because people found the idea too repulsive. So, officials often had to expend a lot of time and energy trying to secure bodies in order to meet the demands of ever-increasing student enrollment. Apparently, this need was so great that it led to some unsavory practices which got one official in trouble back in 1880. |
|
| William Herdman was the Demonstrator of Anatomy at the University of Michigan's Medical School. He was the man in charge of making sure the Anatomy Department had enough bodies to meet the demands of the school year. In his words, the dissection of the human body was recognized as an, "indispensable and fundamental part of the medical instruction." Unfortunately, Herdman's need for bodies made him and the University prime suspects in a recent rash of grave robbing.
|
|
[More about the University's early days]
|
|
|
In a letter to the University's Medical School Board of Regents, Herdman complains of being, "looked upon as chiefly responsible for these defraudations." Apparently, the board wanted some answers from Herdman concerning accusations that he was obtaining bodies for the medical school by less than legal means. Herdman's letter, thirteen pages long and dated June 28th, 1880, starts out as a denial of the grave robbing accusations, and then goes on to detail the difficulty he faced supplying the necessary quantity of bodies for study. Yet, by the end of the letter, Herdman describes himself as an, "unfortunate victim" of circumstance. He implies that, in some way, he is indirectly responsible for the grave robbing because circumstance and the law have forced him to furnish the medical school's cadaver needs anyway that he can. Herdman lays out his own principles for obtaining cadavers which he claimed he strictly adhered to: |
1. Exhaust all legal means to get bodies before resorting to other means.
2. Use surpluss from other colleges if possible.
3. Where necessary by other sources, to draw from the pauper and friendless dead at our county houses and asylums with the consent of the proper authorities if such consent could be obtained.
|
|
| Herdman blamed a lack of laws that would make getting bodies for dissection easier. In his student days, Herdman, along with other students, had petitioned the state legislature to enact the desired laws, but their petitions fell on deaf ears. What exactly the preexisting laws were regarding bodies for medical purposes Herdamn does not make clear. However, a number of surrounding states such as New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, as well as European countries, enjoyed certain laws designed to furnish their respective medical schools with an adequate supply of cadavers for student dissection. These were known as the "Anatomical Laws." Among other provisions, these laws placed strict penalties on shipping bodies out of state and even harsher ones on anybody caught grave robbing. The result was that these laws cut off outside sources to get bodies. Herdman was forced to comb Michigan to supply his increasing demand. Since there was no donor program in place, he often went to the pauper dead as a source of supply. |
|
|
Herdman maintained that: "Michigan's dead should supply Michigan's need for Medical Instruction."
For this end, he proposed that the poor and destitute, being cared for in life and in death through public expense, should furnish public schools with their body once they have died as a way to pay back the debt they incurred to the public when they were living.
|
|
| Herdman's description of the pauper dead was: "A class of bodies, which,
being so used, will give the least offence to the public mind, least
outrage to private feeling." Herdman insisted on using bodies which he
felt had belonged, when living, to the poor who would be remembered by
none. He did not see any problems with this, and, in fact, he lobbied the
state legislature for a law that would help provide these bodies legally.
However, there was no law in place to give the power that Herdman sought.
Instead, he relied on his employees for adherence to strict principles
charging them: "bring the bodies of none but the pauper class or those who
had died friendless and alone" according to, "such as, were the law what
it should be." William Herdman had his employees working for him using
methods that he thought should be law. Then, in summing up his letter,
Herdman almost seals his guilt.
|
|
| Consequently, he acknowledges that sometimes the quest for bodies led to
problems. Herdman calls it a "clandestine business" with unsavory men
involved who did not always follow instructions. Herdman then convicts
himself and the University lamenting that: "In not a few instances these
instructions, are, by such men, disregarded and the University and myself
are made the unfortunate victim of their unscrupulous greed." He claims
not to be responsible for the actions of the men he hired to obtain
bodies. If they were grave robbing to fill Herdman's quota, Herdman
either didn't know about it or didn't want to know about it. He never
mentions turning any of the bodies back because he found them to be
obtained by illegal means, nor does he deny knowing about the practice.
Whatever the case, William Herdman was embroiled in a controversy with the
University. Apparently, his position was a stake. Further research has
been unable to provide any final outcomes to the matter or the fate of
Herdman. Seen as a black spot by the public on a rapidly growing
university, the matter was probably kept quiet by the university as much
as possible. Grave robbing is serious business, whether now or then, even
if it the "poor and the friendless."
|
