Sean’s funeral

A right to visit the deceased? A death care practitioner’s perspective

In this commentary, Laura Pusey considers whether and why someone should be allowed to visit a person who has died, especially when their relationship to the person and their family was ‘complicated’.  You might also be interested in a related commentary that considers whether and how funeral directors should support visits when the condition of a body might give cause for concern.

Jules has received the unexpected news that her ex-partner Sean has passed away. Jules anticipates that if she were to turn up at the funeral that could upset Sean’s parents further at an already difficult time. Perhaps she didn’t want to face them either.  But she wants to do something. She quickly settles on the idea that she will go to visit his body.

Jules seems to think it is her right to see Sean’s body to say her own personal goodbye, but the system within which Sean’s funeral has been arranged means she is not automatically entitled to do so. And people have different ideas about who, if anyone, should have rights to visit the body of someone who has died. It is perhaps helpful to start by considering how the system works in this case.  

How the system works

No-one can own a deceased body, but funeral directors can serve as custodians who take on responsibility for looking after them.  When a funeral director is instructed by a client to arrange a funeral, they typically take the body ‘into their care’ from the place of death and they are then responsible for it until they deliver it for the funeral.  The client is usually the person who pays the bill for the funeral, and the funeral director takes instructions from the client for various arrangements, including whether there will be opportunities to visit the person who died in the chapel of rest, who may visit, and whether and by whom objects can be placed with the body in the casket. The funeral director is expected to follow the client’s instructions.

In this case, Sean’s parents do not seem to have instructed the funeral director to arrange visiting times, but their instructions have apparently left scope for people to perhaps visit on request with their permission. 

The funeral director had not been expecting Jules’ visit and it is not clear what he knew or asked about Jules’ relationship with Sean and his family. But he would probably be aware that families can be webs of complex relationships. He would likely have come across situations in which ‘one side’ of a family was allowed to make a visit to the chapel of rest, but not the other, or where ex partners and children from previous relationships were excluded.  Some funeral directors have access systems to their premises that allow passcodes to be shared with those permitted to attend a chapel of rest. The funeral directors act as gatekeepers, but the clients decide who should be given access.

The funeral director in this case apparently wanted to support Jules somehow and perhaps felt conflicted knowing the client’s instructions. (It is also possible that he did not know exactly what Sean’s parents had instructed when he first came out to talk with Jules). Given the current system, Sean’s parents would have strong grounds for complaint if the funeral director arranged for Jules to sit with Sean’s coffin without their permission.

Other considerations

Beyond the question of what the rules allow, questions of whether Jules should have a right to visit Sean, or whether it would be appropriate to enable her to do so, depend on a range of considerations. I outline just a few here.

We might want to consider what motivated Julies, what she hoped for and what might actually be achieved if she was allowed to view Sean’s body. Did she have a good reason?  The case story does not give many details, but it seems unlikely that Jules was merely wanting to satisfy a morbid curiosity about what a dead body looks like, and she does not appear to be looking to have a last, bitter or hateful word.  It seems more likely that she is feeling a need to acknowledge her previous relationship with Sean – a need that can often arise when someone dies – and she wants to say goodbye.

Jules was apparently in a state of some shock and emotional turmoil over the news of Sean’s death.  Her demand to see his body might thus have been a knee-jerk response, and on further reflection, she might have realised that spending time with Sean’s body would not be akin to any reconciliation she might have had with Sean in life.  Indeed, it might ignite more regrets for a relationship that was lost and could never now be revived. If Jules had been allowed to view Sean’s body, it may have left her with an image of her past lover that she would rather not have seen but could not un-see.  Spending time with a body is one possible way of acknowledging a previous relationship and saying goodbye, but it is not the only one, and not necessarily the best.

Jules’ assumption that she should be able to spend time with Sean’s body seems to be based in part on her status as a former partner.  Claims of closeness imply a need for support in bereavement, but such claims may be contested by others and may not be readily verifiable.  Jules sought to view Sean’s body because she anticipated awkwardness (or worse) with Sean’s family if she went to the funeral.  The emergence of faces from the past at such events can risk adding to the grief of all concerned, but ‘aggro’ is not inevitable.  If Sean’s funeral was taking place in a public space, such as a crematorium, it would be unusual (and perhaps not possible) for her to be excluded from proceedings. We might question whether her absence would be more than a ‘matter of courtesy’ and whether the option of attending the funeral should be more seriously considered

When a dead body does not look good - a funeral director’s perspective

In this commentary, Abi Pattenden considers whether, how and why funeral directors should facilitate visits to their Chapel of Rest when the body of a deceased person does not look as good as bereaved visitors perhaps hope.  You might also be interested in another commentary that considers who should be permitted to view a deceased person’s body and why.

Traditions and preferences vary relating to the visiting of the bodies of people who have died.  Funeral directors are used to facilitating these visits when clients request them, but there are several ways in which a body’s appearance might cause concern to a bereaved person.  These include:

• Visible evidence of traumatic causes of death or other injuries;
• Ongoing evidence of illnesses that the person experienced while they were alive;
• Visible evidence of post-mortem intervention;
• The body not looking as fresh, clean or in as good ‘condition’ as the bereaved person expected;
• The body not looking as peaceful as the bereaved person expected or hoped; and
• The body not looking ‘like’ the person (differing in some important respects from how the bereaved person remembers them).

People’s reactions to experiencing any of these can vary greatly and are not entirely predictable.  A bereaved person’s expectations of what they will see and how they will feel may be at least partly subconscious, and so cannot be clearly articulated and managed in advance.

Funeral directors and others who prepare and support people who have been bereaved to visit the body of someone who has died, usually try to do what they can to reduce shock, distress, and disappointment.  For funeral directors, this involves taking good care of the body, including when preparing for viewing, and communicating with bereaved people ahead of a visit so they have some sense of what to expect.  Funeral directors do these things both as matters of care and because, whether justified or not, poor experiences when viewing bodies may lead people to question the skill and professionalism of those caring for them, which may cause reputational damage.  Many bereaved people have little or no familiarity with what happens to bodies after death, so even with the best of care, their expectations may not be met, and their experiences of viewing may be challenging and distressing.

Different perspectives on a body’s appearance

In the case story, Sean has been under the care of the coroner.  This suggests that the manner of his death and/or a post-mortem examination could have affected the condition and appearance of his body.  It is harder to embalm someone after a post-mortem, so it is also less likely that this method of preservation was used in this case.

As mentioned above, the comparison between how a deceased person looks in the Chapel of Rest and how they looked when alive can be important for bereaved people.  For funeral directors who often have not known the deceased person in life, it may be the inability to make such comparisons that causes difficulties.  When preparing someone for their funeral, photos can be useful guides, but may not reflect the person’s recent appearance, especially if they have been unwell for a long time.  More generally, funeral professionals who have regular exposure to deceased people tend to assess the appearance of a deceased person in comparison with the condition of other deceased people.  Some in the industry who have ‘seen it all’ may forget the impact on others of the more extreme sights to which they have become accustomed.  But even when funeral directors remain sensitive to these issues, and someone’s appearance is objectively ‘good’, especially in the circumstances, they can be surprised and perhaps upset by an expression of disappointment on behalf of visitors.  Conversely, funeral directors sometimes find that someone whose appearance causes them concern is responded to well by visitors.

Supporting mourners who might want to view a body

If a body has been seriously damaged or has deteriorated, especially in the facial area, I would expect a funeral director to consider discouraging mourners from viewing – or encouraging them to think carefully about why and whether in the circumstances they wanted to.  I would also expect a funeral director to be able to discuss these issues, and any work that has been or might be done to care for the person who has died, with sensitivity to the situation and the people they are talking to.  It is important to recognise that many clients will be unfamiliar with how funeral directors care for the bodies of the deceased, and I think we should use factually accurate explanations and avoid euphemism in our choice of language.  If a company has employees whose specific role is to care for deceased people (trained embalmers, for example), then clients with specific and perhaps technical queries should be able to access that expertise.

The inability of the funeral professionals in the case to convey the issues relating to visiting Sean’s body in ways that make sense to Jules are below my expectations of how these conversations should proceed.  There is a training need for clear language and good communication here, and all funeral directing businesses should be trying to ensure their teams are well placed to have these conversations.

Particular practical challenges for preparatory communication can arise when a small number of people are involved with arranging a funeral, but a larger number may wish to spend time with the person who has died.  Sometimes visits are limited to a smaller circle who have been fully briefed and are determined to proceed.  Sometimes one person who is thought to be particularly suitable to the task is nominated to make the first visit to assess the person’s appearance and use their knowledge of both the person who has died and those who might wish to visit to help assess and discuss how positive this experience might be.  Funeral directors need to be able to explain these alternatives – and reasons for considering them - clearly, appropriately, and professionally. They also need to be able to advise of the potential burdens on the people involved. If decisions are made against viewing a body in an open coffin, other options might be considered.  An option to sit with a closed coffin, as mentioned in Sean’s case, is one.  Another might be an invitation to place articles in the coffin.

Some people believe that understanding that someone has died is vital to ‘moving through’ grief, and that seeing their body is one way that this understanding is achieved.  This suggests that funeral directors should be wary of preventing bereaved persons from seeing someone who has died.  However, there is also a need for careful consideration of the appearances of deceased people, and their ‘suitability’ for viewing. Funeral directors need to be able to explain the issues clearly and to have difficult conversations in appropriate ways. The question of exactly what is appropriate is, of course, value laden and contestable. It is a question that funeral professionals and diverse client representatives need to continue to reflect on.