The AP reports on the increasing number of “unclaimed” bodies that are abandoned at the coroner’s office or funeral home. Although some of these cases are an extension of familial disputes, many times it’s a simple matter of economics. Funerals are motherfucking expensive, and many families just can’t pay up:

Often, the reasons are economic. Funeral costs average more than $6,000, and that can create a burden for people struggling to make ends meet, said Harry Campbell, an investigator with the Stark County coroner’s office.

While Stark County deals with only a handful of unclaimed bodies every year, more populous urban counties, such as Cleveland and Columbus, see a greater number. Last year Cuyahoga County investigated 43 cases. Franklin County had more than 140.

Ouch.

Mind you, funerals didn’t used to be so friggin’ costly. Before the advent of funeral homes, DIY funerals were the norm: just you, your loved one, a pine box, and a plot in the family graveyard out back. Oh, and a half dozen shovels. No embalming, no velvet-lined coffins with satin pillows, no elaborate granite headstone. No need for any of that BS.

But the death pimps funeral directors, in an effort to really getcha while you’re down, have over the years invented $6000 worth of goods and services that you absolutely must buy for dear mum after she passes (otherwise how will the neighbors know how much you really loved her?). Guilt-tripping, as valuable a tool as it is, isn’t the only one in a funeral director’s arsenal. Nope, they’re not above lying to families about the legalities of corpse disposal, using slick product placement to promote caskets that cost more than my used Saturn, or even resorting to the ole bait-n-switch. Don’t believe me? Check out Milford’s The American Way of Death or Carlson’s Caring for Your Dead. Seriously, most of these people are bottom feeders.

Which is why I feel absolutely filthy after reading comments from the mouths of funeral directors regarding this trend:

These situations are a sad commentary on just how weak family ties have become to some people, said David Corey, executive director of the Ohio State Coroners Association in Columbus.

…and…

“When people walk away, they aren’t avoiding a legal obligation, just a moral obligation,” said Scott Gilligan, an attorney with the Ohio Funeral Directors Association.

Oh, the hypocrisy! It burns, it burns!

Listen, you douchebags: most families wouldn’t have to forsake the bodies of their loved ones if you hadn’t made an affordable funeral nearly fucking impossible. Do y’all really think most parents, children, grandchildren, brothers, and sisters feel good about leaving their beloved to rot in the company of a stranger? On second thought, don’t answer that. Given your fucked up sense of morality, I doubt I’ll much like the answer.

(Note to everyone else: yet another excellent reason to consider whole body donation. Help science, save money. Could there be a sweeter deal?)

A quick follow-up to Saturday’s post…

I just started reading Kenneth Iserson’s Death to Dust: What Happens to Dead Bodies, 2nd ed. (oh, yes, I am tons of fun to hang out with!), and came across a third option (other than opt-in or opt-out) for organ donation - that of “mandated choice” (and, thinking of it now, it seems like a big duh! to yours truly):

“Another option for organ donation, which is harder to implement but is emotionally more acceptable to many, is mandated choice. Under a system of mandated choice, all competent adults would be required to decide for themselves in advance whether or not they wanted to be organ and tissue donors when they died…Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults and 90% of college students support a mandated choice system. Nearly three-fourths of U.S. adults support the most important part of the system, that physicians would have to abide by the deceased’s expressed wishes regarding donation without asking permission from the family.” (page 73)

Now there’s a compromise I can die with! (Disregarding the current logistics, of course…)

Regarding the last part of the paragraph, elsewhere Iserson notes that:

“Most states’ organ donation laws do not have provisions for the next of kin’s involvement. Yet, in most cases, an organ procurement team will remove organs from a cadaver only if the next of kin or person responsible for disposition of the cadaver agrees, no matter what the deceased’s wishes were.” (page 69)

And no matter that the courts recognize this is a violation of the deceased’s rights! Of course, this is due to our ridiculously litigious society - so thanks, Stella Liebeck - why don’t you go tell the tens of thousands of hopeful organ recipients why they don’t get their new kidneys this year?

And I promise, no more death/dying talk for at least a week.

- K

Who Owns a Dead Body?

In the 17th century it was accepted as common law that there were no property rights in a dead body. Officially no one owned it, and legally the dead had no rights. But the surviving spouse, children or next of kin had a right of possession (a sort of trust), for disposal (burial) of the body…The right of possession of the body means that it must be received intact for burial. In other words, no dissection or removal of organs may take place without authorization.

Because of the shortage of organs for transplantation there have been moves to change the law so that organs may be removed from any cadaver in the absence of an expressed wish against it. This would be what is called a ‘contracting-out’ or opting-out arrangement.

- Cedric Mims, When We Die: The Science, Culture, and Rituals of Death (1999), page 263

An opt-out arrangement for organ donation? Say what?!

As much as I support organ donation, ethically, I’m not so sure an “opt-out” plan is fair or moral. The absence of objection does not necessarily equal the presence of permission.

As an atheist, I don’t generally see why people object to organ donation, cremation, or other “defilements” of a corpse. After all, dead is dead, and Joe Schmoe is never gonna need his body again. Heck, he’d be none the wiser even if a necrophiliac had his way with the corpse. Everything that’s done after death is really just for the survivors - Joe’s gone, and he won’t ever know whether his last wishes were carried out. Which sounds like a perfect reason for an “opt-out” organ donation scheme, right? Well, maybe, but I’m torn here.

Elsewhere in his discussion, Mims describes the use of a cadaver’s eggs (or sperm) for fertilization purposes:

It will soon be possible to retrieve eggs from foetal or cadaveric ovaries. In neither case will the donor have given consent, but the main objection is that the child resulting from such procedures will have to come to terms with its origin, which in the case of the foetus is a person who never existed as a mother. (page 279)

By the time I pass, odds are that my eggs might very well be one of the parts routinely harvested from cadavers. Dead as I may be, I’d have a huge philosophical problem with doctors using my eggs to help some selfish, infertile couple pop out more toeheads, while tons more languish in orphanages. I guess I could “opt out,” sure, but the mere assumption that my organs should be used for such a convoluted purpose is offensive enough.

Besides, what if there’s a complete 180 in attitudes towards organ donation between now and then? Currently, a deceased person’s wishes for donation oftentimes go unfulfilled; doctors may be unwilling to broach the subject with grieving families, or narrow-minded relatives might object and nix the whole thing. Let’s say we have such a push for donation that, in twenty years, anyone not willing their organs to others are social pariahs. Where does that leave my “opt-out” arrangements then?

Although I do think donation is the preferable choice, education is a far better answer, with less potential for abuse. Even though I find most people’s objections against donation to be silly and superstitious (as they’re either rooted in religion or a misunderstanding of science), that doesn’t mean I should be able to single-handedly overrule them.

And, in case anyone’s wondering, even though I support organ donation in theory, I don’t plan on donating my own organs. As a vegan and ARA, I personally can’t justify saving the lives of people who will then live to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of “food” animals. Rather, I’d like to donate my body to science, and hopefully in doing so, I’ll save some poor lab chimp from the chopping block while helping to further scientific knowledge.

While we’re on the macabre…I uploaded a bunch of graveyard pictures to my photo album. More to come soon…

Enjoy!

- Kelly

Nope, not the chorus in the newest Offspring release.

Last month I plowed through two books, Caring for the Dead by Lisa Carlson and The American Way of Death Revisited by Jessica Mitford, both of which are highly critical of the modern American funeral industries (to put it politely). I actually thought that they would both prove rather dry and boring - after all, they weren’t my personal choices of reading material, but rather I was perusing them for work - yet, they were so engaging that I found myself forgoing sleep and even TV in order to pore over them.

I won’t get into the myriad of problems with funeral homes, cemeteries, and other death-related businesses; that’s a whole other series of posts. I have written reviews of both books for Amazon, though, so you can check them out if you’re interested.

There’s just one particular passage in The American Way of Death Revisited that I keep mulling over - it’s just so amusing and puzzling at the same time.

First, some background: contrary to the claims of many funeral directors, the modern American funeral is largely a recent phenomenon. Although the “funeral men” (as Mitford refers to them) claim that today’s funerals are rooted in tradition, there’s nothing traditional about them. A century ago, home viewings were the norm, the clergy (as opposed to funeral directors) helped the bereaved with arrangements, and the deceased were buried in simple pine boxes, usually in public cemeteries or even (gasp!) at home, in familial plots.

Contrast that with the funerals of today, in which the funeral men have usurped the roles played by religious leaders, extended families, and mental health professionals (can you believe that funeral directors are allowed to charge for “grief counseling,” something they’re neither licensed nor trained to do!?…but I digress). Families are pressured to buy increasingly expensive and extravagant “caskets” (“coffins” is no longer an acceptable term), even in the case of cremation. Corpses are embalmed for extended open-casket public viewings, and the relatives of the deceased literally have nothing to do. Rather than actively honor their dead, for example, by making the coffin by hand or participating in planning the ceremonies and rituals, they usually relinquish such responsibilities to impersonal entities that will charge them huge sums for the service.

Britons like to brag that they’re 50 years behind America when it comes to funerals; their ceremonies are decidedly less pompous and more personal. Back here in the US, there’s a small but growing movement to return to the funerals of yesteryear, to regress at least to England’s level. Which brings me to the subject of today’s post: embalmers.

In her chapter on English funerals, Mitford describes the perilous future of embalmers. Or, rather, she lets an embalmer explain it in his own words:

“An English contributor to the American Professional Embalmer describes some of the roadblocks he has encountered. The main trouble seems to e that ‘the open-casket is unknown in this country…The coffin is invariably closed at the funeral service proper and, more important still, the funeral director is frequently instructed at the first call to close the coffin immediately when the remains are placed in it. This lack of acceptance by the public of a fundamental American concept produces more than one difficulty for British embalmers; with no demand there can be no practice.’”

[The significance of an open- vs. closed-casket funeral is this: embalming is performed so that the body’s preserved for a few extra days, and thus can be displayed in the grotesque spectacle that is the open-casket funeral. Without an open-casket funeral, there’s no need for embalming. Contrary to popular belief, embalming is not essential for public safety, and in fact actually spreads some pathogens (not to mention, the chemicals used pollute the environment). Its public health benefits are merely a myth, borne of ignorance and perpetuated by the funeral men, in search of additional profits.]

The lack of demand for such services notwithstanding, who in their right mind would want to be an embalmer in the first place? Embalming is a recent development, such that it’s hardly a traditional family business and proud birthright to some unlucky schmuck. So familial custom and pride aren’t compelling reasons to aspire to such a vocation. Additionally, embalmers are exposed to a host of toxic chemicals and consequently suffer from an increased risk of various health problems, such as brain cancer - a compelling reason to avoid these jobs like the plague.

And then there’s the actual work itself; if you’re like most Americans, you probably have no idea what embalming entails. Mitford’s chapter on the process is darkly humorous but too long to even excerpt here. Instead, check out Funeral.org’s highlights.

Some choice morsels (a word of warning - what follows is not for the faint of heart):

“Rigor mortis (stiffness) is relieved by massage. (Rarely but sometimes, tendons and muscles are cut in order to place the body in a more natural pose if limbs are distorted by disease, e.g., arthritis.)”

“The mouth is then tied shut with wire or sutures. (Glue may be used on the eyelids and lips to keep them closed in an appropriate pose.)”

“The second part of the embalming process is called cavity embalming. A trocar — a long, pointed, metal tube attached to a suction hose — is inserted close to the navel. The embalmer uses it to puncture the stomach, bladder, large intestines, and lungs. Gas and fluids are withdrawn before “cavity fluid” (a stronger mix of formaldehyde) is injected into the torso.”

“The anus and vagina may be packed with cotton or gauze to prevent seepage if necessary. (A close-fitting plastic garment may also be used.)”

Yummy.

Returning to the anonymous embalmer’s extended whining session in American Professional Embalmer (btw, can you believe they have their own trade journal? - how much could there possibly be to say about embalming, for chrissakes?)…I have to wonder not only who in their right mind would choose to do this for a living, but…why in the world they’d settle on such a freakish vocation when it’s both unwelcome and unnecessary in their country.

As creepy as I find American embalmers, there’s something far more disturbing about English ones, who insist on undertaking such a grotesque task, even in the face of active resistance by their fellow Brits. What type of man is so enamored of the embalming process that he tries to create a market for such services where none exists? Are the English really that hard up for jobs?

Ah, well, time for lunch.

- K