The truth, the half-truth and nothing of the truth
Der Letzte Weg 2001 from chris caliman on Vimeo.
Good word, embalm. Its vowels and its consonants are gentle, emollient, reposeful. Balm. Calm. Serene. Peace, perfect peace.
It definitely sounds like a nice thing to do to a dead body, yes?
Undertakers hold the view that there are things we don’t need to know and they may even have a point, if what they do is really necessary.
The jaw suture, for example, to close the mouth.
So if you go to Videojug, you will hear an undertaker, Mr Maguire of the NAFD, no less, tell you that embalming is but a simple injection which leaves a dead person looking lifelike.
Lifelike??!!
It takes two sides to have an argument, and I can take both at once. One of my best friends is an embalmer. Others of my best friends would say that embalming is a violation and a desecration.
If you don’t know what it looks like, watch the 11-minute video above. But before you click play, let me warn you: you need a very strong stomach.
If you can’t face it, have some fun at the freshly made-over Videojug site. It’ll tell you how to striptease, make your breasts look bigger, avoid a trapped arm when cuddling in bed—oh, all kinds of indispensable things.
Do tell Videojug what you think of Mr Maguire. Leave a comment. This is a public information site. In a free(ish) country like ours, people have a right to know.
My thanks to Bob Butz for putting me on to Thanatopraxie. More about his excellent new book, Going Out Green, another time.
Labels: Embalming
posted by Charles Cowling at
10:05
7 Comments:
I am going to be embalmed when I die...but not by him probably!
I'm pretty conflicted about embalming. No-one who has seen embalming would disagree that the process is very invasive and uses lots of chemicals. It's certainly not 'a simple injection'.
The truth is, some relatives don't need to see the body. But plenty do. And I'm one of those who thought he didn't need to, but did, and, fortunately, had a positive experience (via the Co-Op, incidentally).
The subject of the film looked pretty OK prior to embalming and in this instance I'm unclear as to whether it was necessary.
However, the body of a person who has been involved in an accident or battled disease for a long time will often look much worse. There might be pieces missing or massive bloating or severe emaciation. Or jaundice. There might be post mortem staining. Or decomposition. And if they've had a post mortem then they certainly won't be looking at their best. I won't go on, but you get my drift.
Viewing a body in such a condition can make 'saying goodbye' an especially harrowing and fearful experience and it's little wonder that many people will not go and see a body (despite needing to) because they've made their own pictures about what the body will look like or have had a bad experience in the past. And that can set up lots of problems for the future...
A skilful (and committed) embalmer can correct most of these problems. Of course, you don't want Aunt Maude to look 'lifelike' - as if she's just about to get up and go dancing - because that would deny the reality of her death, but I'd argue that if she died from anything other than old age in cool weather you probably wouldn't want to see her in her natural state either.
Many people will say 'I don't want to go and see her because I want to remember her as she was', and that's fair enough. But for many of us, the last memory we have is of Aunt Maude dying in an intensive care unit, or when we had to identify her body at the hospital mortuary. And it's often a strong image. Embalming (when done properly) creates one last image of a body at peace.
You'll see that I've qualified 'embalming' with 'when done properly'. Embalming has two purposes, IMHO. The first is for protection of public health. The second is to give families a helpful last viewing. All too often commercial considerations (or the need to please shareholders) mean that 'public health' is addressed but little attention is paid to 'presentation'. So you end up with bodies being embalmed, but still looking awful.
Fortunately some people, like Mark Elliott (http://markelliott.biz), have made it their mission to improve the presentation of the deceased (whether embalmed or not). Yes, I did his website but only after being very impressed with his talent and devotion to the families he serves. He's now training people to do the 'presentation' part, even if they're not embalmers, and I wish him every success with it because families deserve better than they often get.
Just as funerals are (mostly) for the living, so it is with embalming and ultimately we have to ask 'what do the relatives need?' There's no point embalming for embalming's sake. But if it would help ease a relative's grief then perhaps it has some merit.
Oh dear Tony,
What rot! "Ease grief by embalming" I don't think so.
From the tone of your approach I presume you are a Funeral director. Why is that FDs think it is their responsibility and role to protect families from the reality of death?
What makes you think that to view a body it needs to be embalmed. From my experience facing the true condition of your loved one can help you accept that it was indeed their time to go. I have spoken with many who have been horrified to discover the deceased looking better than they had done for the last 20 years. That is not helpful it is freaky and distressing. Don't you see how veiwing a body that looks vital and fit can make the loss more harrowing?
I am not saying that those involved in accidents or other unpleasant discoveries don't need a bit of 'help'. Or that a good hairwash and brush up is not appropriate. Just that routine embalming is an unecessary rip off which I believe can do more harm (to family, embalmer,& environment) than good.
Don't you have a fridge?
stop hiding behind the 'public health' rational too, also bunkum.
From speaking with hundreds of members of the public I can tell you that a fair percentage don't know what embalming involves. Believing it to be some kind of topical application. As for the litres of blood going down the drain that is a shocker too. When they know about that they certianly don't want it for the precious body that they have loved and cuddled. 'Just want to be left alone' is what I hear all the time.
So I agree with you "there's no point embalming for embalming's sake"
Did you actually read my comment Rosie? Or just 'presume from my tone' that I must be a Funeral Director and skip to the 'reply' button?
I'm not a Funeral Director, though I've arranged a number of 'em and I've seen more than enough bodies belonging to people I've loved, in various conditions.
I stated that I wondered whether embalming was necessary in a lot of situations, including the one we witnessed on the video.
You're right, it's not helpful to have a deceased person looking 'better than they had done for the last 20 years'. Indeed I wrote 'of course, you don't want Aunt Maude to look 'lifelike' - as if she's just about to get up and go dancing - because that would deny the reality of her death'.
But equally, I've seen the long-term consequences of a distraught mother running from her 19 year old son's coffin because his face was deep purple and heavily lacerated. It scared her witless. She will now never go and see another body because of that experience, and, what's more, felt that she didn't get to say goodbye because she ran away, and ultimately feels that she let her son down. That guilt will haunt her for ever.
Embalming may not be the answer (I'm more inclined to think that 'Presentation' may be) but don't you think it would have been helpful to soften the blow somehow?
As a funeral director of ten years, I am deeply committed to helping people come to terms with their loss, and equally opposed to embalming. Folk can cope with the reality, and the case you mention of a mother fleeing from her dead son could perhaps have been avoided by some honest frank talking by the funeral director. Besides, as I understood embalming can only be done on a body that hasn't begun decomposition, so the idea that it can reverse something like that is just not true.
Family who have seen and spent time with their unembalmed relative in my care, have expressed relief that they don't look weirdly well. None have complained about their appearance, but I make sure everyone knows exactly what they look like first.
The environmental aspects of embalming may well be not as bad as we feared; there is every chance that by the time the chemicals reach the soil they are neutralised, but none the less, the funeral trade mags that I subscribe seem to have an unusually high number of obituaries dedicated to embalmers who die around fifty, riddled with cancer. Our European colleagues think this is down to our cavalier approach to highly dangerous substances. They may be right.
Sorry Tony,
You seemed to have missed my points. I did indeed read your piece and have just re-read it. Thank you Rupert for your very sensible comments.
Luckily those involved in disfiguring accidents are in the minority and I agree with Rupert, the FDs role is crucial in these situations. The mother of the 19 year old you tell of was, I feel, terribly let down by her chosen FD. If she had been clear about his condition and given the option of a more shielded viewing or the implication of the extra assaults upon her son's body that embalming would inflict, it might have been a very different outcome.
From my experience families want honesty, frank explaination and reality. They want to be informed and don't want decisions and the truth kept from them or to feel that 'others' are keeping them in the dark for their own good.
One of the memories I have of visiting my deceased father that helped to convince me that some horrid mistake meant that we were not about to bury him in a coma or similar, was seeing his unembalmed body. He looked just like he had in the hospital but a bit dark around the back.
You may be thinking that if he had been embalmed, if he wasn't dead then, he absolutely would be having had the 'hygenic treatment'.
All the families who I have helped to organise a natural unembalmed funeral, who have also wished to view the body, have been very grateful for a frank discussion before hand about the implications of viewing 'unembalmed.' Most have still gone ahead and none have found it a more distressing experience than they would have done otherwise. The only negative comments are about how cold the deceased feels. To be honest the vast majority of elderly dead - the majority of the dead, just look asleep. As you know the first part to 'go' is the abdomen. I have not had any family want to look at anything other than the face and hands.
Of course some bodies are beyond viewing and embalming would not have helped anyway.
What did societies do before the chemicals. Surely even if burials were arranged more quickly viewings still took place. Are we all just detatched from the grim realities of life and death and our experiences overly sanitised in general.?
You make a lot of good points, Rosie (presumably that is you?) and I really don't think we're disagreeing on much (despite your admonishment of 'Rot', no pun intended, I suspect). As I, and you, said, those who have died from old age probably don't warrant embalming.
Further, I think embalming should never be done without consent, but recognise that there is an issue around 'full knowledge' (and that's the root of a lot of my conflictedness with embalming).
But I strongly believe that in some cases embalming can definitely help the relatives and I've seen enough evidence of the benefits at first hand with people I loved.
I am becoming increasingly aware that families are often told - because it's the easy option? - that there must be a closed coffin when really there doesn't have to be; and that makes me really cross. And if it's a choice between a closed coffin and embalming, I suspect I'd choose embalming (but ask me next time someone I love dies).
Perhaps we have too much time on our hands between the death and the funeral. Ultimately I think the Jews, Muslims and other cultures who try to bury their dead within 24 hours have it right in so many ways - there's simply no time, or need, for a lot of the planning and primping that goes on when someone dies. Perhaps that's what we should all be striving for...
For those of you that are Funeral Directors, how would that affect your business plans (and costs)? Given that there are plenty of Muslim and Jewish funeral directors in the UK already, why shouldn't everyone be given a 3-day maximum turnaround and get the worst bit over and done with?
Or is direct cremation the way to go?
So many possiblities :)
Thoughts?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home