COMPLETE ANATOMY BILLING LICENSE
Some of these provisions are similar to those of the 1832 Act which it replaces.Ĭlause 3 deals with the Secretary of State's power to license premises where anatomical examination is to be carried out and to license persons either to undertake anatomical examination or to have possession of anatomical specimens. It states that both of these activities are only lawful if the death has been registered or certified, the premises are licensed, the person is either licensed or has permission from a licensed person and, of course, that the body was lawfully donated. It also states that the Bill is not to apply to any post-mortem examination undertaken to establish cause of death or any donation of a part of a body which is authorised for removal under the Human Tissue Act 1961.Ĭlause 2 deals with the control of anatomical examination and possession of anatomical specimens. Clause 1 contains definitions of the terms "anatomical examination", "anatomical specimen" and "body". Those of your Lordships who have read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum will have read some of these notes already. The structure of the Bill is simple and I shall say something brief about each clause. The present Bill is in part a consolidation measure clarifying the provisions of the 1832 Act in relation to the Human Tissues Act 1961 which deals with the donation of parts of the body for therapeutic purposes. Obviously in 150 years things have changed and new legislation, which impinges on the 1832 Act, is It required all those practising anatomy to have a licence to do so appointed inspectors of anatomy required that all bodies used for anatomical purposes should have a death certificate and that the permission of any surviving relatives should have been obtained. Was an immediate success and body snatching disappeared almost overnight. The 1832 Act, the Long Title of which was,
The notorious so-called "resurrectionists" Burke and Hare were in fact finally executed for murder. Bodies became more difficult to come by and the price went up to such an extent that even murder was committed to obtain bodies. The practice of body snatching became a scourge and public indignation grew. At the same time the number of medical students increased greatly from 57 in 1720 to 400 in 1800 in Edinburgh and from 1780 to 1823 in London they went up from 340 to 1,000.
Until the early 18th century anatomy was taught largely by lecture and demonstration, but during that century personal anatomical dissection by students became the norm. The practice was most prevalent in London and Edinburgh where the medical schools were concentrated. The original Bill of 1832 was necessary to curtail the sinister practice of body-snatching-that is the removal of recently buried corpses, or even unburied but laden coffins, and their sale to medical schools for the use of medical students for dissection. It aims to ensure that there continue to be proper arrangements for the possession and use of dead bodies which have been donated for anatomical examination, and that the system is not open to abuse.
It is, to quote the Long Title:Īn Act to make provision about the use of bodies of deceased persons, and parts of such bodies, for anatomical examination and about the possession and disposal of bodies of deceased persons, and parts of such bodies, authorised to be used for anatomical examination, and for connected purposes". The Long Title of the Bill summarises its purposes clearly. This is another reason why it is perhaps appropriate for me to move this Second Reading since I have in fact as part of my medical training dissected a human body. It deals with an unusual and, some may feel, a rather macabre activity namely, the anatomical dissection of the bodies of deceased persons for teaching or research purposes. It was guided through another place-largely on the nod, I may say-by an Opposition Back-Bencher, the Member for Blaydon, as a Private Members Bill, so it is appropriate for me to do likewise in your Lordships' House as an Opposition Back-Bencher. My Lords, I beg leave to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
0 kommentar(er)
