Funeral Consumer Advocate Myths Part 3: The Great Embalming Mystery
By Randy Garner
Reprinted from the November 2009 issue of “The American Funeral Director”
Consumer advocates seem to feel that if consumers really understood what embalming is, they would never want it done to their family member. During an appearance on the Mark Johnson Radio Show that I mentioned in the previous installment of this series, Dave Grundy, speaking as president of the Vermont Chapter of Funeral Consumer’s Alliance, said that he had once watched the video of an embalming. According to Dave, it was so gross that he had to stop watching it after only a few minutes.
Dave’s attitude about embalming reflects an egotistical belief that he and others in organizations like his are the only people, other than funeral directors, who really know what the embalming procedure involves. This is another example of those people failing to give the average consumer credit for understanding the world they live in. Many consumer advocates insist that the consumer be given a full explanation of the procedure in order to be able to properly understand the ramifications of their decision.
First of all, there are many things in this life that a layperson might describe as “gross,” that they pay others to do for them. This rather long list would include many of the things done to and for us in hospitals, dental chairs and to our pets at veterinary clinics. But laypeople aren’t asked to do these things. Trained professionals do them.
Secondly, it is very naïve and perhaps self serving to think that most lay people do not understand embalming. I do a fair amount of public speaking in schools and around town, and I always ask those in attendance about their knowledge of embalming. It is very rare to find someone who at a minimum doesn’t understand that it involves replacing blood with preservative chemicals. They may not know the exact procedure, but chances are whatever they are imagining is more severe than the actual procedure. To assume that adults have somehow made it through life without garnering this basic understanding is pretty outlandish.
As I previously mentioned, I do believe that folks have enough understanding of embalming to make a rational choice regarding it being done for a family member. Similar to the decision to have one’s appendix removed, folks are more interested in the outcome (a disease-free abdomen), or in the case of embalming, a satisfying viewing experience, than what procedures were used to achieve it. In time of grief, families do not want someone subjecting them to a detailed description of the embalming procedure any more than they want us elaborating on what happens to bodies in the cremation chamber, or those who are buried un-embalmed in shrouds, or what we do to unembalmed bodies to prevent disagreeable things from happening during the viewing. And yet, if you advocate informed consent, all of those options would need to be detailed to allow for an informed choice.
During my time on Mark Johnson’s radio show, I went on to say that I felt that any funeral director or consumer advocate who subjected families to this type of unrequested disclosure should be brought up on ethics charges, to which Mark shook his head in agreement. It would be the rare family indeed who would want or need this information to make their choice.
Many consumer advocates lack the technical exposure and practical experience to realize that refrigeration cannot always be relied upon to provide for incident-free extended viewing periods, as are required in areas of the country where public calling hours take the place of slumber room visits. Slumber room visits allow funeral home staff to quickly inspect the remains before allowing someone to enter. But during calling hours, our buildings are filled with family and friends from start to finish who will experience firsthand any disagreeable things that start happening with the body, with no chance for us to discretely conceal them. We know the many variables that can make extended viewing of unembalmed remains risky and how best to minimize these risks. But there are times when even the conventional means of minimizing that risk can prove ineffective and the procedures used to regain control of the remains can be just as (if not more) invasive than traditional embalming.
Besides, many people today are finding even refrigeration disagreeable. Because of numerous shows on television, like “CSI,” people have vivid images of bodies being slid on trays into coolers and many don’t like it. For this reason, many families now request that we come to the bedside at the hospital so their family member won’t end up in the morgue. One can imagine the reaction to telling them that their loved one will be held by that same morgue tray cooler method at your funeral home.
Lastly, if cost savings is the goal of eliminating embalming, I believe that viewing of casketed refrigerated remains should in many cases be at least as (if not more) expensive than embalming. Besides the purchase cost of the unit and the ongoing electricity cost, viewings followed by a funeral the next day require a lot of extra work on the part of the funeral home staff. Even if you have a walk-in cooler to hold the remains overnight, you most often need to remove the body from the casket. I don’t say this publicly, but we all know that even if the casket fits in the cooler, the moisture swirling around in the cooler will cover the casket with dew and moisten the interior. The next day, it is necessary for staff to re-casket the remains.
In spite of what consumer advocates may think and say publicly, the embalming procedure is not a secret to the general public. They get the basics, and that’s about all most of them want. Any of us would show our embalming rooms and give any degree of detail that is requested of us, outside of a funeral arrangement conference. Modern embalming procedures are relatively neat and clean.
In the early days, embalming was performed by physicians. It is worthwhile noting that bodies donated to medical schools undergo far more extensive embalming than is done for funeral purposes. Embalming’s value in restoring remains to a pleasing and stable viewing condition is well appreciated by those who request it. I believe that the sensationalizing of embalming by consumer advocates, while choosing not to discuss the displeasing aspects of those other options makes them guilty of the same self-serving agenda pushing of which they often accuse funeral directors.
