Viewings:
a Source of Revenue
As the
saying goes, there are three guarantees in life: change, death and taxes.
As
uncomfortable as it may be for some, it is death of which I speak.
Care for
those who have died is as old as the human race. Evidence of such dates back to
Neanderthal man, where animal antlers and flowers were found is a burial ground
next to the deceased. Mounds of earth, heaps of stone, trees, or platforms have
been utilized. For some a final resting place is a catacomb, burial chamber or
mausoleum.
Common
threads among them all are some type of ceremony, funeral rite or ritual and a
sacred place for memorials. (http://thefuneralsource.org/). A service helps
confirm the reality of death, allows others to share in the grief and is a
declaration that a life has been lived (www.newsminer.com).
The
custom of holding a viewing in which family members and friends come to see the
deceased's body is particular to western culture and is thought to aid in the
grieving process. However, there are now doubts that the tradition of a formal
viewing is necessary, let alone helpful.
The
first major red flag in the argument supporting viewings is that most
documentation in favor is authored by the funeral service industry. Although we
may not like to think of it in these crass terms, viewings do provide
additional revenue.
Today,
the average North American traditional funeral costs between $7,000 and
$10,000. The costs are so high that Utah law now allows families to care for
their dead without the services of a licensed funeral director (Utah.gov).
The
viewing of the corpse is one of the fundamentals of the economy of the funeral
industry. Before the body is offered for presentation to relatives and friends,
it must be perfumed, restored to a look of perfect health, dressed in expensive
garments, and placed in a respectable, "comfortable-looking" casket.
These requirements of viewing, usually, constitute the bulk of the funeral
costs (http://www.chabad.org/).
In
addition, the most common argument for viewings relies on the concept of the
five stages of grief, namely denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and
acceptance, an idea first put forth by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. The idea is that
seeing a dead body helps us move past the “denial” stage. However, there is a
fundamental issue with the stages theory itself. It is very possible these
theories are so common, not because they are right, but because human nature is
more comfortable when they know what to expect and anticipate when a loved one
passes away (www.psychologytoday.com/).
A newer
theory suggests there are patterns of grief, including prolonged or chronic
grief where survivors struggle for years and never seem to get better. Or the
recovery pattern which is intense but in shorter duration and then the
individual themselves get back to looking and acting as they did before the
loss, but may still hurt for many years (www.psychologytoday.com/ ).
Empirical
evidence suggests that even if there are stages to grief, viewings are not
necessary to traverse them. Travel the world and you find that Muslims bury
their dead soon as possible. Hindus scatter ashes of the deceased in the Ganges
River. Some cultures in Africa have been known to bury their dead in the floors
of homes. Water burial in the south pacific and the wearing of white in Asian
are part of the cultural. Judaism follows three major stages of preparation for
the dead: washing the body, the ritual purification and dressing. Mourners make
a tear in an outer garment, parents on the left, over the heart. For Buddhists,
death is seen as a transition to a new mode and those remaining feel it their
responsibility to help them in that process (http://thefuneralsource.org/).
Viewings
may not present in these traditions, but clearly the rest of the world isn't
permanently paralyzed in a stage of grief, because they didn't all get to see
the deceased's body.
In
addition to suspect motives and anthropological evidence to the contrary,
experts have published statements against viewing a loved one's body.
Viewing
the corpse is objectionable, both theologically and psychologically. It shows
no respect for the deceased and provides questionable therapy for the bereaved.
On the contrary, we believe that while viewing may seem desirable
superficially, deeper consideration will show it to be devoid of real meaning,
and, in fact, detrimental in terms of both religion and mental health.
Religiously, it expresses disregard for the rights of the dead and a perversion
of the religious significance of life and death. Psychologically, it may serve
to short-circuit the slow therapy of nature's grief process that begins from
the moment of the awareness of death (http://www.chabad.org/).
One
would have to question if a viewing is designed to bring comfort and aid in the
grieving process, what do these kind of experiences do to the process? A
viewing where the deceased's face was covered due to an accident and one who
looked nothing like themselves and most difficult of all, a person prior to
cremation who was in a literal cardboard box, still clothed in a hospital gown
and blanket with his face half-shaved
Holding
a viewing is simply a part of the most socially acceptable way to say goodbye
to loved ones. Strong evidence suggests that it is, at best, in no way
necessary to the grieving process and, at worst, is detrimental to it.
