Both animals and Humans exhibit some ritualistic behavior around the death of a member of a community. For some people a lack of a Funeral Service is a psychological hindrance to recovery after the death of another Human. Cremations and other practical methods of disposal of dead bodies have become more reasonable and responsible alternative to in the ground burial. Finally, organ donation schemes value the saving of lives after the organs are no longer in use by the recently deceased and all nations should adopt opt-out schemes, where by assent is assumed, and those who have superstitious beliefs about bodies can opt out of the scheme and carry a Not a Donor card. This saves most lives, and still enables choice. In short, in all areas surrounding death and funerals, issues of care and sensitivity must be given importance, but not at the expense of practicality for those still alive.
1. The Funeral Ritual Instinct
Those wishing for a non-religious funeral ceremony should contact the National Secular Society, 25 Red Lion Square, London, WC1R 4RL. Tel: 020 7404 3126.
Human instinct and the human want for remembrance compels us to provide ways for the dead to be acknowledged. A memorial service or funeral of some kind is almost essential for those who the deceased leave behind. Some kind of final closure on someone's life is something we yearn for. It is not just a Human instinct; animals such as Elephants exhibit behaviours towards death that seem ritualistic, and according to the paleontologists Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin in "Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human", the Neanderthals (who became extinct 32 000 years ago) "occasionally buried their dead with a degree of ritual that we recognise as Human"1. Bodies are buried alongside tools and in symbolic bodily positions.
The funeral ritual instinct can take many forms and is not synonymous with a typical Western funeral. For example in a crematorium, such needs are catered for in Gardens of Remembrance.
“The gardens of remembrance consist of areas set aside for the disposal of cremated remains. [...] In the majority of cases the cremation ashes are strewn or buried in the gardens of remembrance. [...] It must be borne in mind that when ashes are strewn in other places, e.g. graves, churchyards etc, prior permission must be sought and any local rules or regulations obeyed. You do not have to have the ashes disposed of and, if desired, you may keep them personally.Usually the only permanent form of memorial available is an entry in the Book of Remembrance. This book is usually displayed in a special Memorial Chapel and each day the entries for that day are on display so that a person is remembered on the anniversary of the death. Some crematoria allow wall plaques or plaques on kerbstones etc, but these are usually for a limited period and require to be renewed periodically by further payments. At some crematoria it is also possible to dedicate a rose bush or other garden item with a small plaque, but this again is for a limited period with the option of renewal on further payment.”
Cremation Society (2006)2
The daily page, that lists those who were cremated on that day on previous years, strikes a romantic chord with me, and I think it is a wonderful way to ensure that the dead have potential to be remembered, especially by the relatives of those who died on the same day.
2. Disposal of Corpses in an Overcrowded World
2.1. Practical Matters Must Trump Intellectual Ones
In 2000, over 70% of all funerals in England were cremations.
Whether by burial or cremation, bodies must be disposed of properly. It is illegal to leave them alone as they are a severe disease risk. It is also illegal to dispose of a body for the purposes of preventing an inquest3. Although some find it taboo to ponder the issues, the disposal of dead bodies is a sobre and practical affair where the realities of biological decay and disease must take precedence over Human superstitions, fanciful ideas and magical thinking.
A great many diseases are caused if bodies are not disposed of in a careful and proper manner. Social animals also have instinctual modes of behaviour associated with corpses, mostly geared around avoidance. Us humans share some of those instincts, but our ability to intellectualize sometimes misdirects our actions and leads us down unsuitable paths. This text emplores people to be rational and thoughtful with dead bodies.
2.2. Cremations Have Been More Popular Than Burials Since the 1960s
From 1939 cremation rose rapidly in popularity, overtaking religious coffin funerals as the preferred postmortem arrangement for bodies from the 1960s. England was the first Western country to adopt cremation widely. Government control in this area should be strictly secular in a democratic and fair country, as it is wrong to force particular religious rituals on a populace consisting of multiple faiths and varied beliefs. The Cremation Society, founded and ran from the UK, has been the biggest secular organizer, enacter and proponent of cremation, since the late nineteenth century.
“England became the first Western society to adopt cremation so extensively. [...] The overall thesis of this study suggested that one earlier but critical factor in the change from burial to cremation was the transfer from Church to local government of significant responsibilities in the disposal of the dead.”Peter Jupp (1993)4
2.3. Arguments for Cremation
- "Cremation is recognised by Public Health Authorities as the most hygienic method of disposal of the dead"2
- England has acute problems with space to bury the dead5, many formal burial grounds are full and many rotate slots, smashing the bottom of old coffins and putting new ones on top - known throughout Europe as "lift and deepen". This is officially banned in the UK at the moment, but the practice continues6 because it is practically necessary.
- It reduces the cost of funerals.
- Ashes, in Urns, are safe from vandalism and can be kept wherever the bereaved wish, even in the home.
“By the time of the ancient Roman and Greek civilizations cremation had been generally adopted as a method of disposing of the dead. With the advent and spread of Christianity, however, and its concomitant belief in the resurrection of the dead, cremation fell into disfavour and by the fifth century the practice had become almost completely obsolete.
”Cremation Society (2006)7
2.4. Religious Protests
Superstition has led some religions to ban cremation and argue against it. Before its legalization in 1884 there was a long period were religious clerics succeeded in preventing cremations from going ahead. Thankfully religions that have impractical dogmas telling people how they should behave towards the dead have become obsolete and are largely ignored by many of their own adherents. The Catholic Church banned cremations of Catholics until 1963, and it is still banned by Orthodox Jews and Muslims.
2.5. The Personal Disposal of Ashes
Increasingly the bereaved chose to walk away from the crematorium with the ashes. In the 1970s about 12% did so, but in 2005 that value was nearly 60%. "Often present in the minds of the bereaved can be a complex metaphysical connection - one that leaves a more desirable image than the memory of burial," says Prof. L. Kellaher of Sheffield University. People scatter ashes around places of beauty, or places of special association with the departed. This is ultimately romantic, sentimental and peacefully un-morbid, completely unlike the structured rituals of traditional funerals. Dr Tony Walter from the Center for Death and Society at the University of Bath says that there is a trend towards "personalisation" of funeral rites, and "an almost over-the-top sensibility about human remains. [...] It's a fascinating shift"8.
The shift towards personal disposal of ashes, and the storage of ashes in urns, is a return to an ancient practice. Our ancestors in the UK were immolated and buried in urns, just as the pagan vikings in Sweden would cremate the dead then bury the remains in a clay pot under a mound9.
3. Organ Donation
In the UK in 2007:
- Over 3000 people received life-saving organ transplants.
- 1000 more people died whilst waiting for an organ.
- 8000 people remain on waiting lists.
- "Thousands" do not sign up to the lists because the chance of an organ becoming available is too low.
The Economist (2008)10
3.1. Opt-Out Schemes are Better Than Opt-In
In the UK as in some other European countries, people can choose to carry a Donor Card which elects that certain, or all, healthy body parts can be used as transplants. This saves many lives. But many lives are lost because it requires active volunteering, whereas many people don't know that they have to10, and others want to help others live, but, haven't actively expended the time doing the paperwork! There is a better system, donation by default or presumed consent. This is where all organs can be routinely used to save lives, but where one can choose to carry an exemption card. Everywhere should adopt systems where consent is assumed.
At the moment there are massive shortages of many organs, resulting in the premature deaths, increased suffering, and needless loss of many human lives. Across Europe, as technology and medicine prolongs our lives, organ replacements are increasingly in demand, which is partly why most European countries already use opt-out schemes and why the British Medical Association recommends it too10. In the UK, organ shortages are so severe that thousands die per year. The level of suffering that can be alleviated by donors does not balance well with the idea that by default organs are not used. They should be! Anyway, below we compare three types of people: (1) Those who actively carry a card, (2) The majority would happily donate their organs but haven't actively attained a card, and (3) those who are opposed to organ donation, normally for religious or superstitious reasons.
| Organs Voluntarily Donated | Organs Donated
by Default |
| 1. Good citizens who actively carry donation cards. | Lives Saved | Lives Saved |
| 2. Good, but inactive, citizens who haven't done the paperwork. | Lives Lost By Default | Lives Saved by Default |
| 3. People with religious beliefs (etc) who do not want to help. | Lives Lost by Default | Lives Lost by Exception |
This chart makes it easy to see that the system that a nation chooses to employ makes no difference to those people who actively volunteer for organ donations schemes, and also makes no differences to those who actively refuse to comply. In both systems, these activists can get what they want. It only makes a difference to the large group of people who do have an active stance. These defaults are best swayed into life-saving action by simply having an opt-out system instead of an opt-in one. Viewed like this, it is hard to imagine what reasons against opt-out schemes can be important enough to warrant the loss of life it causes.
3.2. Strange Beliefs
There are some people who have beliefs so outlandish that they consider some mystical rules regarding dead bodies to be more important than saving the lives of those who are still alive. Such questionable morals are, unfortunately, hard to overcome politically and so they will be entertained by any system of organ donation. In a world where morality overrode superstition, such people could not choose to let others die by preventing their organs from being reused.
We will now examine some of the arguments against donation by default, and, I present counter-arguments for each one of them. There is no moral, social or rational reason why we should not use an opt-out scheme rather than an opt-in one. But in our opt-out system where people carry Not a Donor Cards, those who have strange beliefs concerning once-useful organs and what happens to them next, can opt out. People without such beliefs will otherwise have their organs used to alleviate suffering.
3.3. Objection: My body is my property and I can do what I want with it
Firstly, this objection implies that the living are allowed to make plans that, in the future, will deny life-saving aid to those who need it. Whats more, this argument holds that such reservations over ones' own property can apply after death. It is strange to place property ownership over the right to life, and it is even stranger to assert such rights after you've died. In UK Tort Law, it would surely fall foul of duty of care law, if only such law was a little bit clearer.
Secondly: In life, it is true that people withhold property at the expense of others. The world is free, and wealth accumulation is part of that. But upon death, the redistribution of organs does not in any way infringe on any living person, and helps those who are still alive. Therefore objections against presumed consent based on concepts of property and free will don't entirely make sense.
The property objection was not a moral to start with, and it is almost indecent when you consider its ramifications. Property, including corpses once they have no owner, is not more important than life.
3.4. Objection: Freedom to Choose
Some object to opt-out schemes on the basis that it somehow reduces freedom. There are two freedoms involved on the part of the potential donor:
- The freedom to choose to save lives.
- The freedom to choose not to save lives.
In both opt-in and opt-out schemes, those who want to make a choice still can do. No freedom has been infringed on anyone's behalf. Now consider the third freedom:
- The freedom to life.
To die is to lose all capability of choice and will; it is the loss of all freedom. To let someone die is to consciously deny them all freedom. If the promotion of freedom is an issue in the Donation debates, then, we must always save lives in order to promote all freedoms, rather than allow people to choose to deny people freedom. Know that one person's organs can save the lives of multiple other people.
3.5. Conclusions on Organ Donation Schemes
The UK's Organ Donor carrycards are an example of an opt-in organ donation scheme. The moral, social and rational arguments for an opt-out (presumed consent) scheme are compelling and it is clearly a much better and more humane system that leads to more freedom overall, more lives saved, and less human suffering. The main difference between opt-in, and out, schemes is that the large numbers of inactive civilians will be able to help others when they die, and activists who are against organ donation can still exempt themselves by carrying a Not a Donor Card. This still allows the morally challenged to prevent their organs from helping others live. The benefits are so great to the living, that the wishes of the dead should even be ignored: there shouldn't even be an option to exempt oneself from the organ donation scheme. The morally dubious reactions of some religious folk result from superstitions that should be overridden by compassion.
Link:
4. Military Remembrance Parades
“It is right, healing, educational and value-enforcing to remember those who have died in wars. Such memorial services are held a few times a year (typically) by any particular unit, and major ones are synchronized across the UK and orchestrated by the Government.Memorial services should remind us of the horrors of the past and therefore hint at the potential horrors of today that soldiers may face in the line of duty. They should also serve as solemn appraisals of the valiance of fallen soldiers and quiet condemnation of the futility of war. It is right that such proceedings are led by a Padre, whose job it is to preside over such events.
Importantly, memorial events should be inclusive so that all can remember, in peace, those of the past. In the British Army days such as Remembrance Sunday are taken very seriously and it is compulsory to attend. This compulsory nature, and the universalism of tragedy, both imply that the mourning be conducted in a way that does not exclude any particular people. [...]
However, this is not the case. In the British Army memorial events are heavily Christian. The Padre does not lead a universal and inclusive ceremony. He invariably leads a Christian service, with the mentions of fallen comrades taking second-place to the promotion of Christian religion. For example, in the 2005 Remembrance Sunday service in Javelin Barracks, all ten pages of the ceremony timetable include references to God and Jesus. There are fewer mentions of the victims of war than there are comments on God and Jesus.
It is not only the quantity of Christian-specific elements in many of these events, it is also the tone which is a problem. The tone implies that only Christians are worthy to be present. The Chaplain, Rev. Brian Millson's first three paragraphs all state that proceedings go on 'before God'. "We meet today, to remember before God all who have died" and "We bring before God in penitence the hatreds of our world" are two examples. There is no hint that non-Christians might also want to express penitence for mankind's ills; and for those that aren't religious at all, it's almost stating that they have no right in being there! The service on page 7 even instructs the assembly to pray for those who have no faith in Jesus Christ. How offensive and inappropriate, on a day of mourning, to be shoving religion down people's throats! The references to "praying", to religious beliefs, overwhelm the other emotions of the service. This is wrong; the service should be victim-orientated, not god-orientated, and certainly should not be an opportunity for a Christian to preach his beliefs to others.”
"Enforced Christianity in the Modern British Army: Memorial Services, Church Parades and Tolerance" by Vexen Crabtree (2006)
5. Assisted Suicide
Assisted suicide is illegal in most countries that have laws on suicide. Exceptions, according to circumstances, are in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and in the two USA states of Oregon and Washington11. In the UK suicide was decriminalised in the Suicide Act of 196112. The same law made it illegal to help another person do this legal act, and is punishable by up to 14 years in jail. But this isn't the whole story. Eight hundred Britons have signed up with Dignitas, and one hundred have voluntarily died there, aided to their end by physicians. In the last 6 years, at least 90 have travelled abroad to get help with committing suicide11. None of the Brits who travelled with them, or the relatives who helped them beforehand, have had a prosecution brought against them. A principal book on UK criminal law states that "if it is determined that the terminally ill person was competent, her local authority had no power to seek to maintain an injunction to restrain her spouse from complying with the wife's wishes to take her to Switzerland" to commit suicide12. This creates, in reality, a conflicting and impractical state of law. Lord Falconer, once the Lord Chancellor in the UK, continues:
“Though prosecuting those going with them has in no case been deemed in the public interest, many fellow travellers have been interviewed by police and waited for months to learn that no charges would be brought. It is "time now for the law to catch up with reality," he says. [... and proposes that] if someone declares before an independent witness his intention of committing suicide, and two doctors certify that he is terminally ill, a person accompanying him abroad for that purpose should not face prosecution.”The Economist (2009)13
Lord Falconer's sensible declaration seems hard to fault, except for the fact that many of those who suffer from excruciatingly horrible and debilitating diseases that are not actually terminal illnesses. The law should allow the assisted suicide of those certified as per Lord Falconer's idea, with the addition of those certified to be unable to counter a disease that dominates every area of their life. Eighty percent of Britons support changing the law to allow assisted suicide13, and for simple reasons of compassion and freedom of choice, I agree.
