ABSTRACT
When The Argus in Melbourne published the article ‘An Ineffective Post Mortem The Result of Medical Interference’ in 1900, something untoward was revealed in the press. 1 Laid before the readers was an account of potentially scandalous behaviour in the morgue at Kew Asylum. At the official coronial inquest into the death of Irish-born James B.F., aged 45, who was admitted to the Kew Asylum four days before his death, Dr William Beattie-Smith, Superintendent of the Asylum, was challenged by the Government Pathologist for the Colony of Victoria, Dr James Neild, and reprimanded by the coroner for Bourke, Mr Morrison, for examining the body before the official coroner’s post-mortem was conducted. Neild exposed what could happen to asylum bodies in colonial Victoria with the following six words: ‘the brain had already been examined’ (see Figure 4.1). That this event had occurred was corroborated by the asylum’s Warder Mercer and a Mr Murphy, M.B. who stated that the brain ‘had been so interfered with by Mr Smith, F.R.C.S. [Edinburgh] that an examination by Dr Neild, F.R.C.S. [London] was impossible’, and ‘prevented’ Neild ‘from forming a just opinion of the condition of the brain’ and determining the brain weight. 2 Dr Beattie-Smith’s actions in conducting his own scientific enquiry had thwarted the Government Pathologist’s use of this body as evidence to determine the cause of death under the law as governed by the Coroners Act 1890 and Coroners Act 1896. More damning still was Neild’s statement that ‘this was not the first time such interference had taken place’, and that Neild ‘hoped that he would be pardoned for making some remarks about it’. Therefore the body of James B.F. was a contested object for these two medical men who both considered that they could not do their respective jobs properly without access to post-mortem evidence. The matter was further complicated by the fact that both men also lectured to medical students in anatomy at the University of Melbourne, and if James B.F.’s case were used for teaching by either man, its use also fell under the Anatomy Act 1886. The issues of post-mortems and dissection were contentious topics regularly discussed in the press from the 1850s to 1900. Beattie-Smith’s ‘medical interference’ therefore highlighted the multiple uses for asylum corpses, the various statutes that governed post-mortem and anatomical examinations, and the potential conflict that could arise when a scientific quest could compete with the requirements of the law. Photograph of Kew Asylum (1889–1891) https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315614021/22e31d84-2fce-4b06-b79b-296d510d3a8f/content/fig4_1_B.jpg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/> Source: By Charles Rudd, reproduced by permission from the Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria.
