The practice of embalming and restoration
should be abolished or should only be allowable if people are consulted before
the practice is performed. It is inhumane to allow someone to mutilate a dead
person’s body and rearrange it to please an audience, especially when the
person having the procedures done on has no say over it. A mouth is sown with a
“needle directed upward between the upper lip and gum and brought out through
the left nostril” creates a more pleasant facial expression, describes the way
in which a cadaver is treated to please those that will attend the funeral
service in Milton’s Behind the
Formaldehyde Curtain. The passage of Milton’s book successfully portrays
the evils behind embalming and corpse restoration. Embalming should only be
legal if a person gives their consent, while alive, for this American practice
to take place. It is cruel to automatically assume that every family desires to
have embalmment fulfilled on their deceased loved one, especially with the cost
of the procedure being so high. People
should be educated on what really goes on behind the restoration process before
they make the choice for their departed one.
Once the embalmer begins to “restore” what is to be underground for many
decades to come, the natural death of the deceased person is no longer what it
was meant to be. Embalmment should only be performed in extreme cases, in which
a corpse is no longer recognizable. Nevertheless, it is up to the person to
decide what should be done with their body rather than a mortician or family
member make the choice.
I agree with your comment that consent before the procedure should be necessary to ensure that the deceased individual's wishes are being respected. Nonetheless, I do not necessarily agree that the process is inhumane, because though I wouldn't wish it upon myself, some people would prefer to look artificially pleasant at their funeral and that is a personal choice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statements as well as Alyssa's comments. I do agree that consent should be given orally or by written documentation from a family memember or the person themselves. I agree that it isn't right to take advantage of the family's financial situation by performing this act without permission however I don't think the act is necessarrily cruel because the "cadaver" is no longer alive. It may harm the memory of the person but not the person themself. The only people left to harm are the family members.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that the person who is dead has no say over it but the person when alive should decide whether they do or not. It is not only mutaling someone's body but it is morally and ethically incorrect to do so.
ReplyDeleteIs this process really inhumane if it doesn't harm anyone, and preserves and protects the cadaver for alonger time than if the procedure had not been done? I definitely agree with you that the embalming should only be done with consent though; it's really weird thinking that people can do that to a dead person without even consulting their family first.
ReplyDeleteRemeber the author's name is Mitford. Also, I do not think this process can really be described as inhumane, since the fella is already dead, they can't really feel the process of being sculpted. The only thing that is harmed is the memory of the person, as well as the wallets of thier family members.
ReplyDeleteI agree that consent from the deceased while living would most likely be the most reasonable and diplomatic solution. I just have to wonder if the deceased were a child (awful and morbid to think about but a possibility) and what the circumstances would be here if the parents wanted them embalmed. Maybe not the best point. I also wonder if the consent could also be seen as a final wish by which the family would need to comply, adding unnecessary strain on the family's finances. I would also disagree that while I do think it is unnatural, it isn't inhumane considering that the body would not feel the things being done to it.
ReplyDelete