Post Mortems on SS Leviathan

[PhilB]

This excerpt is from The Great Rescue by Peter Hernon and describes events on the Leviathan (ex-Vaterland) in 1918. It raises a few questions. Did similar rules on embalming and post mortem examination apply to British transport ships? Why would their entrails be piled on their chests and what reasons for such use of string? (No schoolboy humour, please)

[Ralph Currell]

To the best of my knowledge, burial at sea was the norm on British ships.  On passenger ships there were often a couple of caskets carried in the event of the death of a saloon passenger (i.e. a higher class of passenger whose relatives could pay for the embalming), but generally the dead were consigned to the deep.

 

I cannot say what the rules were on American troopships. The provision of 40 caskets mentioned above suggests that they intended to bring any deceased to land.

 

Regards,

   Ralph

Edited 6 June , 2019 by Ralph Currell

[seaJane]

Entrails out first either for investigation or to avoid internal putrefaction. On chests as the only available flat temporary surface (packed inside again post-post-mortem and buried at sea a.s.a.p.). First piece of string to keep position dignified as rigor mortis came and went, second piece of string to prevent unseemly leakage.

 

Or that's my guess.

 

I've seen 19thC anatomy engravings of dissections, and string / other tying material features a lot, presumably to help someone carrying out a post mortem solo.

[PhilB]

Good thinking SeaJane! Thanks.

[seaJane]

Thank you. It also occurred to me that it is probably easier to empty the intestines (which decay sooner when full) if they are outside. 

 

Plenty of buckets aboard.

 

I'll stop there.

 

 

Edited 7 June , 2019 by seaJane

[depaor01]

The second piece of string is puzzling though. Everything else makes sense.

Dave

[seaJane]

On further thoughts, not quite sure if the second was for the containment of fluid or for the prevention of air intake/ expulsion (with accompanying uncouth noises) as bodily cavities were manipulated during post mortem. To be honest I'm theorising here, not working from direct experience.

 

 

[GreyC]

Hi!

Here is a not so common photo of the launch of the VATERLAND in 1912.

GreyC

 

[PhilB]

I imagine that, in the ersatz conditions of a DR aboard a passenger ship crammed with soldiers, the containment of body fluids would be a prime consideration?

[seaJane]

Quite. 

I'm going to stop researching this one - there's some weird stuff out there ...

[depaor01]

31 minutes ago, seaJane said:

Quite. 

I'm going to stop researching this one - there's some weird stuff out there ...

I'll take your guidance on that and not pursue!

Dave

[seaJane]

Sensible man!

sJ

[PhilB]

Thanks folks, I think the practical medical aspects have been adequately covered! I note that the requirement for PMs was a USN requirement. Was it also a US Army rule? Was the ship operating under naval or army rules? Did the British navy and/or army have similar rules aboard ship? Or, as I suspect, could a death certificate there be simply signed off by a doctor? 

[seaJane]

Still named SS rather than USNS so does that mean she was taken up from trade by the US Army rather than USN? 

[PhilB]

But with a USN crew.

[seaJane]

& the medical corps - army or navy?