Of Monsters and Hermaphrodites, legally considered.
It will be seen by the note from Co Litt, quoted under the preceding head, that by the law of England a monster cannot inherit; but the question as to what constitutes a monster is left vague and undetermined. It can seldom have been necessary to agitate this point, since few well attested instances are recorded of any monster, which has materially deviated from the human form,[356] having long survived its birth. Some curious instances, however, have occurred of twins who, having become united in the womb by an obvious operation of nature,[357] have lived for several years.[358] Whether each body should possess separate legal rights would probably be determined by the question whether each possessed the vital organs necessary for a separate existence, if, bating the danger of the operation, they could be corporeally severed. Is it necessary to inform the midwife that he is not authorised to destroy any production however monstrous![359]
The case of Hermaphrodites, or rather of those who may have been deemed such, stands on different grounds; in the physiological illustrations of this subject, the circumstances will be investigated which have led to erroneous conclusions upon this point. In a legal view, it is only necessary to caution the medical attendants to be more careful in the investigation of such cases of doubt, especially where succession to property may depend on the sex of the child. The case of the celebrated Chevalier D’Eon, may long serve as a warning to those who would judge of the doubtful sex of a party by any ordinary and external distinctions;[360] while that related in the causes celèbres of a female[361] who, on account of a prolapsus uteri, was pronounced by the sagacious physician at the Hotel Dieu to be an hermaphrodite, is sufficient to shew the futility of any personal examination, unless conducted by a skilful anatomist.