The cremation of the dead: considered from an aesthetic, sanitary, religious, historical, medico-legal, and economical standpointErichsen, Hugo
Religion
The cremation of the dead: considered from an aesthetic, sanitary, religious, historical, medico-legal, and economical standpoint
Erichsen, Hugo
Cremation
Thousands of cases of malignant sickness, I have no doubt, could be
prevented by the prompt introduction of cremation. Why not, then,
introduce it? Simply because there is an unreasonable prejudice against
the custom? It is ridiculous! Should any mere prejudice stand in the way
of a sanitary reform? I leave it to any sound mind to decide the
question. I am not advocating obligatory incineration in times of peace
except in cases of infectious and contagious disease. I would rejoice to
see it generally introduced, but not by force. Cremation, moreover,
needs not the aid of the sword or law; it will find its way unassisted.
Besides human and animal remains, I think all garbage should be
destroyed by fire.
The idea of cremation which, carried by the wings of enthusiasm,
traversed the whole civilized world in the spring of 1874, is really
naught but a demand of hygiene in favor of our own health. Not only
physicians, but also laymen, should enter the arena where the great
fight between earth-burial and cremation is going on, and combat for
glorious incineration.
The International Medical Congress which convened at Florence, Italy, in
1869 examined into the various methods of burial, and concluded by
expressing its belief that cremation was necessary, and should be
adopted in the interest of civilization and public health.
Dr. C. W. Purdy, of Chicago, Ill., says: “Burial-grounds are
unquestionably ruinous to health, as both theory and facts amply
demonstrate; many sections of population suffer annually disease and
death which are exposed to their influences; all engaged in this
unwholesome system suffer—the grave-diggers, the gardeners, the men who
repair the vaults and tombstones, the friends who visit the graves, and
the whole funeral procession are exposed directly. There is no redeeming
feature about this burial system, degrading to the dead and dangerous to
the living.”
The celebrated medical author, Moleschott, even more vehemently condemns
cemeteries. He claims that they emit a vapor which causes malignant
fevers, and concludes his remarks by calling them “workshops and
factories of the devil.”
Beyond a doubt, cremation soonest places the bodies of the dead in a
condition where they can do the least harm to the living. Incineration
destroys all disease germs and at once removes all possibility of the
contamination of air and water by the dead.
Then why not introduce cremation and do away with all the evils
described in this chapter? It is of no consequence to the dead, whether
they rot in the earth and originate miasma, or are transformed by fire
into pure white ashes. They feel as little of the process of decay as
they do of the flame; their eye is surrounded by the same darkness,
whether they are down in the deep grave or in the glowing light of the
crematory furnace. But it is of the greatest consequence to us, the
living; and the only way to protect ourselves from poisonous infection
by our dead is to burn them.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account