Thursday 5 February 2009

Whose funeral is it anyway?

If you want to open a cattery in the UK you need a licence. Cat care is regulated. If you want to open a funeral home you need nothing of the sort, no exams, no professional qualifications, no previous experience—nothing. Anyone can do it, scoundrels, incompetents, sex-workers, school leavers, sociopaths, stand-up comics. The care of the dead is anybody's business.


Shocking, isn’t it? Scandalous? Something must be done?


No. Definitely not.


Why not?


Two reasons.


First, an undertaker doesn’t do anything that you couldn’t, in a way that a plumber, say, almost certainly can. The dead are wholly safe in the hands of amateurs so long as they (the amateurs) are up for it, for there’s nothing you can do to a dead body in a well intentioned way which that dead body will actually mind. Looking after our dead is not the exclusive preserve of a secular priesthood possessed of arcane knowledge. No, you could produce a training manual in three sentences: Keep cool. Wash it. Pop it in a box. (The bit about keeping cool is deliberately ambiguous.) For DIY embalmers, on the other hand, one sentence will suffice: Don't. (It could so easily all go wrong and you'll have to redecorate.)


Many undertakers would have us suppose that they are professional people. Some shore up this aspiration by accruing professional qualifications. They diligently study for exams and are duly garlanded with the Diploma in Funeral Directing (Dip FD). They want to inspire our confidence in them, and good for them.


For a professional qualification to be of any use it must assign value to that which is objectively measurable. The hallmark of a good plumber is technical expertise, and boy do we want a measurement of that.


But the hallmark of a good funeral director (virtually his or her exclusive attribute) is emotional intelligence. There are no criteria for the objective measurement of that, neither can there be a requisite intellect-size. The Dip FD is an indicator of earnest good intent, but it cannot and does not separate sheep from goats. The right undertaker for you is not necessarily the right undertaker for everybody. 


And so it comes to pass that many of the UK’s best undertakers are untrained and don’t give a fig for professional qualifications. Some of the best of the best are self-taught. Undertakers, you see, get better, first, by doing and being, and only then by book-learning. The question of whether or not undertaking is a profession or a trade is a parlour game for job snobs.


The second reason for resisting the professionalisation and regulation of undertakers is this. When someone dies it is the next of kin who is responsible for disposing of the body. If that’s you, then you’re in charge and every buck stops with you. You are, actually, the funeral director. You have to register the death. You have to apply for burial or cremation. You have to see it through. You have to demonstrate that you did. Only you can do those things, and you don’t have to pass any exams first.


The role of the undertaker, if you use one, is secondary, subordinate and collaborative. It is to do those things (and only those things) that you are allowed to delegate and which you don’t want to do yourself. If you don’t need a qualification, why on earth would he or she?


This is why a funeral parlour is not like, say, a restaurant. A meal out is not a participative event; the chef and staff are not your collaborators. You put yourself entirely, trustingly, into their hands and take what you’re given. If that’s toxic food and awful service, that’s their fault and your bad luck.


But an undertaker is your partner, your deputy. The right one for you is the one who listens, understands you, sees where you’re coming from and can interpret your needs and wishes. An undertaker is potentially a person of immense importance to you because he or she can guide you through unfamiliar territory and work with you to create a send-off for your dead person which will be, both, worthy of that dead person and, also, of immeasurable emotional value to you. 


If you choose a lousy funeral director then, sorry, that’s your bad luck and it is also your fault, because you failed to conduct the job interview properly. Yes, you have recourse to consumer protection laws, but redress after an event like a funeral is always going to fall well short.


That’s a tough judgement to make on people who stumble on the wrong undertaker, their judgement clouded by strong emotion. A funeral is often described as a distress purchase, but it doesn’t have to be and really it shouldn’t be, any more than a new car is a distress purchase because your old one fell to bits. 


Lousy undertakers will stay lousy for as long as they can enjoy, in a predatory way, clients whose emotional confusion and lack of consumer research cause them passively to outsource all decision-making to someone who stands to make money out of them. 


Lousy undertakers can never be improved by training courses and goverment regulation.


The only people who can turn around or exterminate lousy undertakers are clients who exert informed expectations. These clients are, of course, the ones the best undertakers enjoy working with most. These are the clients who bring out the best in them. 


Once upon a time communities looked after their dead. Many Muslims and Jews still do. Yet, wistfully as we may gaze upon that golden age, let’s recognise that there is no general inclination to return to it. So: undertakers are here to stay.


That being so, it is important to define their status. If we look on the dark side we can say that they have worked at it; they have worked hard to become indispensable. They have vacuumed up the roles of laying-out woman, carpenter and carrier. To these they have added the role of collector of fees for burial grounds, crematoriums and celebrants. They hold all service providers in dependency. They have assigned to themselves certain concocted, half-baked traditions in order to create an illusion of the timelessness of their calling, in honour of which they ponce about in cod-Victorian attire. They have assumed primacy. Many of them have bolstered that with self-importance. Gauleiters, some of them. 


The result? Most people believe that they are required by law offer up their dead to an undertaker. 


Professionalising and regulating undertakers can only reinforce the perception that they are the default disposers of the dead and, worse, move them a step closer to being the only people licensed to do so.


You are the default disposer of your dead. The undertaker, if you choose to engage one, is your agent. That is your ancient right, and that right defines your responsibility both to yourself and to your dead. Let us honour all those superb undertakers out there who embrace that.


Our dead belong to us. Let us not give them up. 

3 Comments:

Blogger Neil Dorward said...

Hi Charles, thanks for visiting my blog, not sure if I will be as prolific as a writer as yorself or as eloquent and informative but it is always great to read your stories and articles. You are right, blogging is a great way to share ideas and learn and I will continue to read your blog with great interest.

The article called 'Who's Funeral is it anyway' is something I am so well aware of. Within your local area you soon become aware of who the top funeral directors are but if you live in London and your mother dies in a nursing home in Edinburgh how will you know which funeral director to choose? Maybe there should be a Which magazine style rating system.

Best wishes

Neil

5 February 2009 at 22:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Charles,

I'm pleased to see you weigh in on the licensure of funeral directing.

I'm new to the funeral business, coming to it in 2004, by way of the coffin. I understand that many of the first funeral directors were maintenance men first, the sextons whose job it was to lock up the church, I believe. They had to set up the chairs, dig the hole, cover it back again, and tend the churchyard garden, right? And then I suppose some of them made the box after awhile, too...

I got into the funeral business by way of the box. I'm not allowed to direct funerals over here - I need a college degree, and I need to spend a year apprenticing to a funeral home (taking out the trash, running errands, cleaning the floors) and, until recently, I needed to embalm bodies, as well - in order to legally assist someone in doing the tasks needed to manage an end well. But I'm working hard to be able to do everything I possibly can legally without a license, and I'm getting a pretty good idea of where laws are needed and where they're not.

Over here in the States, where I do my work, we have a very interesting hodgepodge of rules, with no licensure in some states (Hawaii and Colorado), and such extreme licensure in others that one can't own a cemetery and a funeral home at the same time, and I don't believe one can own a cemetery and sell a coffin, either (that's California). And, in California, they have a very interesting rule that one can't have a public wake/viewing unless the body is embalmed.

It seems to me that with the States having so many different forms of regulation, one could do a very systematic study on the death or disease rates, state to state, and that if regulation created some observable impact on public health and safety, we should see people becoming ill from having attended a funeral in Colorado or being exposed to an unembalmed body during viewings in Hawaii. (doesn't happen...)

One fellow, an economist named David Harrington, HAS done some state-based studies. His specialty is in economics, however, and not in public health. Well, it's a different sort of public health, and one we're all feeling a little poorly in these days.

Harrington did discover an impact of regulation: states in which there were more regulations had more expensive funeral services; states which had less regulation had less expensive options.

I don't believe the death rate was any higher in the non-regulated states than the regulated ones. Death by heart-attack due to over pricing may be higher in the regulated states, but I don't think that's been looked at yet.

I really like the way you explain that the funeral director is a collaborator and a partner. The last thing that I think we want is a set of industrial regulators choosing our partners for one of the more personal experiences in a life!

I was giving a presentation recently in which I did say that the funeral director was held to a higher standard than we are because they worked with the general public - they worked with strangers, and there are certain things that I would want a funeral director to know if I were hiring that person from across the country, for example, to take care of a relative if I couldn't be there.

But I should think that a professional or referrals association - and not a government-run registration body - would be the place for that standard to come from.

I like the Charter for the Bereaved that Ken West pointed me to - that seems really sensible. He said that he's also got a Charter for the Deceased in the works, too -- an association that adopted his standards of respect for the Deceased AND the Bereaved might be a great place to start. I'd add a Charter for the Earth to the list, and we might have a very useful group indeed!

I'd also like to see a variety of standards-groups with different standards and different styles -- as long as the standards don't become laws! -- because really, standards do lead to styles, especially whenever a group of people believes in something that we "must" do, and that "must" has nothing to do with health and safety but is, instead, some sort of symbol of some groups' version of respect.

For example, over here there are people who want an enormous blue steel coffin - the thicker the better - with lavender taffeta inside, parked in a solid bronze crate and buried underground and they think that's the epitome of respect, and then there are others -- like me -- who wouldn't be caught dead in such a thing and would see it as complete disrespect for my values.

However, there are plenty of funeral homes where this particular "style" is presented as a "standard" to be upheld, and anyone who doesn't want to meet it is considered "lesser" and "cheap", and the next thing you know this is the norm, with a rule to uphold it, and the sweet boy who was a vegetarian and loved to go barefoot and liked nature but got shot in the war and was shipped home dead gets put in the cold steel box in the vault in the ground, per the military regulations that meet the "dignified" standards, with everyone smiling on the surface that standards were upheld but with the family cringing inside because all of them would know how much he would hate that box and want the meadow and the dirt instead.

When you have regulations or monopolies that end up standardizing style in the name of having standards (because there isn't anything of any true substance - like public or environmental health and safety - to standardize) you lose so much of the color and diversity of expression that otherwise seems like the natural province of our creative natures. What suits one heart doesn't suit another.

With multiple standards groups we might see more variety AND sensitivity in the services offered, or more attention to particular ethnicities, for example.

I think if you folks had had a regulated funeral industry you would never have birthed the woodland burial movement, for example (thank you, thank you, thank you...).

With regulated directors, you wouldn't have had celebrants emerge as strongly as they have, and the humanists would have been denied spiritual expression at the end of their lives, as most of them are over here, since the majority of funeral homes presume Christianity, with anything else being treated as special-case minority OR, more likely, non-spiritual. i.e., if you're not Christian and you're not identifiably religious (Jewish or Muslim - in which case you go to your own part of the cemetery) then you're atheist - i.e., not spiritual, and "don't really care..."

I think the comparison to a plumber is good, but I don't think the funeral director needs to be nearly as skilled as the plumber. After all, the plumber's work becomes part of an infrastructure that lots of people depend upon and use for years after the plumber is gone; the work is hidden in the ground and the walls and inspecting it again is expensive. Badly done plumbing can be dangerous, or ruin houses or buildings and the like. Valves can explode and people can die if plumbing is done wrong. Funeral directing is not nearly as important to get right as plumbing and most everyone impacted is usually already dead.

I agree with you that regulation in the business would be a backward step, benefiting no one but the business, and least of all the family. It's great to look at the UK and realize that no one's dying from exposure to unregulated funerals yet -- Hold the fort, Charles - we're counting on you over here. Our funeral directors may not know it but they'll be happier, and probably do much better jobs, when the right things are regulated (the sale of body parts, for example) and the wrong things aren't...

Cynthia

12 February 2009 at 06:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Cynthia,

Great comment. One quick correction - there is no law or rule in California that requires embalming for public viewing of the body. The only state with this law is Minnesota.



Josh Slocum
Executive Director
Funeral Consumers Alliance
www.funerals.org

15 February 2009 at 02:51  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home