Uncategorised

All finalists in this category showed not only great floristry skills but also an understanding of the sensitivity needed to work with clients who have been bereaved.

The importance of having a good working relationship with funeral directors is also paramount, and the judges took this into consideration when making their decision.

Winner: Rebecca Sharp of Dazzle Me Daisy Do

Runner up: Rosie Orr of Flowers by Rosie Orr

Photograph by Jayne Lloyd

The 2017 Good Funeral Awards were generously sponsored by Greenfield Creations

A report by Matilda Munro
This blog post is an adapted version of a project completed by Matilda Munro in October 2016 as part of her Natural Sciences BSc at the Open University.

In the United Kingdom there are two main methods for disposing of the dead: cremation and burial.

Over time, cremation has increased in popularity with it now representing what happens to almost three quarters of people (The Cremation Society of Great Britain, 2015).

Cremation and burial have different environmental impacts – and within each there is variation depending on particular choices made (such as type of coffin).  In cremation, the body is destroyed through burning which uses a high amount of non-renewable energy.  In contrast, in burial the body decomposes slowly over time – however, in a standard burial when the body is placed deep in the ground, decomposition results in the emission of methane which is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming (TNO, 2011).

New processes are also in existence which are not yet regulated in England and Wales.  One process in this category is alkaline hydrolysis. In brief, this involves the body being dissolved in an alkaline solution at high temperature and pressure, leaving bone ‘ash’ remains.

Those involved in the invention of refined alkaline hydrolysis methods, as well as the wider funeral industry have tried to persuade the Ministry of Justice that alkaline hydrolysis should be covered by existing legislation which covers cremation.  However, this argument has been rejected to date by the government who say that since the cremation legislation references ‘burning’, it cannot be applied to alkaline hydrolysis (Thomas, 2010).  This means that whilst disposing of a body through alkaline hydrolysis would not be technically illegal (provided the disposal posed no risk to public health and would not offend public decency), it would be an entirely unregulated industry. All parties involved in the industry are keen that it should be regulated from the start and hence new legislation would be desirable prior to its introduction. Regulation would provide safeguards and minimum standards, as it does for cremation and burial.

What is alkaline hydrolysis?
The process from start to finish, as explained by Sandy Sullivan the Managing Director of Resomation Ltd. (2009):

1. The body, which is inside a silk or wool coffin, is placed inside the machine.
2. The machine calculates the weight of the body so the right amount of water and potassium hydroxide (an alkali) is added automatically.
3. The liquid is heated and held under pressure to speed up the process.
4. The contents are then cooled by cold water.
5. The liquid contents are drained away – this is organic matter with no DNA traces.  In a standard cremation, this would have gone up the chimney of the crematorium. Here it is going to the water table.
6. Porous bones are left in the Resomator
7. These remains are rinsed, and dried.
8. A cremulator reduces the bones to a fine powder, as in cremation.
9. The resultant ash is pure white and can be returned to families in an urn.

Evidence regarding the environmental impact of alkaline hydrolysis in comparison to burial and cremation
A Life Cycle Analysis of different funeral techniques in the Netherlands was conducted with a view to concluding which method of disposal had the lowest environmental impact by TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for applied scientific research (TNO, 2011). In their research, they consider the life cycle to include the gathering of raw materials (such as those to make a coffin), preparations (such as digging a grave or heating a crematorium), carrying out the method, maintenance, processing residues and finally any transport between these steps.

TNO research (2011, see Table 1 below) shows that alkaline hydrolysis has the lowest impact across the categories measured.  In some instances this is due to the environmental ‘savings’ from being able to recycle things such as metals.  It is the highest contributor in the category of eutrophication.  This can be altered depending on where the ashes are scattered.  With particular reference to its impact on global warming, it can be seen to have a much lower impact than either burial or cremation (Figure 1).

Which method has the smallest environmental impact?

Table 1: Table of results from TNO (2011) showing the different environmental impacts of the disposal techniques

Figure 1: The impact on global warming of burial, cremation and alkaline hydrolysis, based on the TNO (2011) data

The table above (TNO, 2011) and Figure 1 show that alkaline hydrolysis has lower impacts than burial and cremation in all areas apart from eutrophication and that burial has the highest impact in all areas apart from eutrophication, with cremation in between. Out of the three methods, it is therefore the most sustainable.

The reliability of the findings
TNO were commissioned to carry out this research by Yarden, a large funeral organisation in the Netherlands.  Whilst there is a potential that the vested interest of Yarden could have an influence on the findings, TNO are a reputable organisation employed to give an independent opinion.  The data for cremation and burial was provided by Yarden as they are one of the largest funeral organisations and therefore have a significant amount of data.  For alkaline hydrolysis, the data was based on hypothetical information provided by Resomation Ltd.  This does raise some issues since it is in Resomation Ltd’s interest that it can sell itself as environmentally superior than other available options.  However, in 2014, the research was updated to included actual data from Resomation Ltd. as by that point they did have data for the disposal of human remains using this method. They did not find that using the real rather than theoretical data changed their findings in any way (TNO, 2014). This data is based on average practices across the disposal methods in the Netherlands and individual choices for the funeral or memorial can easily counterbalance any environmental saving from the disposal method. For example, if a family chooses to have someone disposed of through alkaline hydrolysis, but then they fly the whole family to the Maldives to scatter the ashes, the environmental impact will be very different to a local funeral.

Apart from the TNO study of 2011, and its 2014 update, there is limited independent data specifically comparing the environmental impact of burial, cremation and alkaline hydrolysis.  This is predominantly due to alkaline hydrolysis being a new method and therefore data being limited.  It is possible that new studies will now take place in Scotland following the change in legislation there.  It would be useful to have data like TNO’s, looking at a Life Cycle Analysis within the UK rather than in the Netherlands.  The likelihood is the results would be similar as practices in both countries are more comparable than, for example, practices between the UK and United States where burial is still dominant and embalming is more widespread.  However, additional data from Scotland would be useful.  Notwithstanding the lack of local data, it seems unlikely that vastly different environmental conclusions would come out of further study. Given increasing population and increasing concerns regarding global warming and emissions in particular, it could be argued there is enough evidence that alkaline hydrolysis should be regulated – then it is up to the consumer to make the choice between the methods.

The views of people within the funeral industry, excluding those directly responsible for alkaline hydrolysis
The Cremation Society of Great Britain was founded in 1874 and from its inception, was open to the idea that in the future, a better means of disposal than cremation may come into existence. The original declaration stated: “Until some better method is devised we desire to adopt that usually known as cremation” (Cremation Society of Great Britain, 1999). In 2008, the Cremation Society changed their constitution to allow them to accommodate alkaline hydrolysis (Sullivan, 2009). In some states in the United States where the process is used, it is referred to as bio-cremation.  Other organisations such as Co-operative Funeralcare which is one of the largest funeral directors in the UK have also expressed their support for alkaline hydrolysis as a process. In particular, they state that the environmental considerations are significant as people do want to end their life in a more environmentally friendly way (Thomas, 2010).

However, some involved in cremation do not accept the environmental argument in favour of alkaline hydrolysis.  Andrew Platts of Crystal Air Solutions, for example, argues that crematoria can be carbon neutral if the heat is recycled and suitable scrubbers are fitted on the chimneys (Thomas, 2010).

The views of those behind the technique of alkaline hydrolysis
There is one company leading the way promoting alkaline hydrolysis, both in the UK and abroad.  That company is Resomation Ltd., founded by Sandy Sullivan in Scotland in 2007 with the aim of promoting alkaline hydrolysis (which they call Resomation®) globally.  They have patents pending on particular aspects of their technology and are the first company to have used the method to dispose of human remains in the United States (Resomation®, 2016b).  Their view, unsurprisingly, is that their method of disposal provides a credible alternative to both cremation and burial – and that it represents a more environmentally friendly method than cremation.

The views of the government and the current legal situationFundamentally, alkaline hydrolysis is not illegal – but there is no legal framework by which it could be regulated as an industry in England and Wales.  As explained by White (2011), the Ministry of Justice decided in 2009 that the existing Act regulating cremation cannot be applied to alkaline hydrolysis since it specifically references burning and they do not accept that alkaline hydrolysis is burning.   In 2012, when alkaline hydrolysis had not yet been tried, the Under Secretary of State for Justice said that the “Government will follow with interest the progress of trials [of the alkaline hydrolysis process] in Europe and the United States” (House of Commons, 2012). In the summer of 2016, the Scottish parliament passed legislation regulating alkaline hydrolysis using their existing legislation around cremation (Scotland, Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016, s.99.1).  This has now, arguably, put additional pressure on the Ministry of Justice to pass the equivalent legislation in England and Wales.

Opposition to alkaline hydrolysis as a process
There is very limited opposition to the idea of alkaline hydrolysis as a process. In general, opposition is made due to public health concerns regarding the disposal of the liquid remains (effluent) after the process is completed, though there is no evidence that it poses a public health risk.  Some people argue that it is undignified and disrespectful to the deceased, or that the high pressure, high temperature unit could be dangerous (Olson, 2014).

Whilst people may initially feel disgusted or unsure of the method, once properly explained there is no reason why it could not end up as popular a choice as cremation is today.  Indeed, when cremation was first introduced, it was not popular but has increased in uptake year on year (Cremation Society, 2015).  Where in cremation organic matter goes up a chimney, with alkaline hydrolysis, it is returned to the water table (it has more in common with burial in this respect) (Resomation®, 2016a). In funeral homes where it has been introduced in the United States, many families are choosing to sit alongside the alkaline hydrolysis machine during the process (Sullivan, 2009).

With regard to the public health argument, when Resomation Ltd. discussed how the effluent could be disposed of in the UK, all major water companies confirmed that it would be possible for it to be entered into the mains water system for processing in the usual way.  No DNA material survives the alkaline hydrolysis process so what is left is a sterile liquid (Thomas, 2010). Whilst this means water returned to homes as drinking water could indeed have come from this process, this is no different to water coming from waste treatment plants.

Proposed Solution
Given alkaline hydrolysis is not technically illegal, and given there seems to be strong consensus that as a method of disposal, it ought to be offered in England and Wales as an environmentally friendly alternative to burial or cremation, it is possible that the Cremation Society of Great Britain, or other large bodies in the industry will ‘self-regulate’ the process – particularly as it has now been covered by specific legislation in Scotland.  If this were to happen, the risk would be that the government would have to react and legislate retrospectively rather than proactively, now, while the industry do not provide alkaline hydrolysis as an option for disposal. This matter has now been ongoing since 2009 and the situation in Scotland does apply additional pressure to the government of England and Wales.  Why should the same method be regulated on one side of the border and unregulated or unavailable on the other?

In England and Wales, there are two main ways that the Secretary of State could regulate alkaline hydrolysis.  One involves amending the Cremation Act of 1902, and the other involves using powers from the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. For the Cremation Act of 1902 to apply to alkaline hydrolysis, this Act would have to be amended and passed by parliament.  Draft legislation to this end was produced by White (2011) who is also a member of the Council of the Cremation Society of Great Britain.  This shows that there is support for this legislation even in areas from which one might expect to find opposition.

Conclusion
Under current legislation, whilst any method of disposal that does not offend public decency or cause a risk to public health is permitted, the methods which are regulated by government legislation are burial and cremation.  Between these two methods, the evidence shows that cremation is more sustainable than burial.  When alkaline hydrolysis is considered, the environmental arguments in its favour are strong, and backed with independent evidence. The first cremation took place in 1886 in Woking, as organised by the Cremation Society of Great Britain who then worked hard to bring about the Cremation Act of 1902.  It is perhaps significant that cremation started before being fully legislated (as it too would not have been illegal for the same reasons alkaline hydrolysis is not illegal today).  If the government accepts that it is preferable to legislate in advance rather than retrospectively, then they will need to act soon.  The government has the opportunity, along with 13 states in the United States and Scotland, to be global leaders in this sustainable method for the disposal of human remains.

Update:
In April 2017, it was announced that Sandwell Council has approved plans to extend Rowley Regis Crematorium to house a Resomator machine. See here.

References
Cameo (2016) Sharing the burden [Online]. Available at http://www.cameoonline.org.uk/ (Accessed 19 September 2016)

The Cremation Society of Great Britain (1974) History of Modern Cremation in Great Britain from 1874: The First Hundred Years [Online]. Available at http://www.srgw.info/CremSoc/History/HistSocy.html#introduction (Accessed 27 September 2016)

The Cremation Society of Great Britain (2015) Progress of cremation in England and Wales Scotland and N. Ireland 1885-2014 [Online]. Available at http://www.srgw.info/CremSoc4/Stats/National/ProgressF.html  (Accessed 12 September 2016)

House of Commons (2012) Hansard, 5 September, Volume 549, Column 354 [Online]. Available at  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2012-09-05/debates/12090536000002/BurialSpace?highlight=alkaline%20hydrolysis#contribution-12090536001265 (Accessed 29 September 2016).

Lockart, Z. (2016) Green Reaper [Collage]. Private collection.

The Mayo Clinic (2016) Body donation at Mayo Clinic [Online]. Available at http://www.mayoclinic.org/body-donation/biocremation-resomation (Accessed 15 September 2016)

Ministry of Justice (2007) Burial Grounds: The results of a survey of burial grounds in England and Wales [Online]. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217908/burial_grounds_web_whole_plus_bookmarks.pdf (Accessed 29 September 2016)

Olson, P. (2014) ‘Flush and Bone: Funeralizing alkaline hydrolysis in the United States’, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 666-693 [Online]. DOI: 10.1177/0162243914530475 (Accessed 21 September 2016)

Resomation® (2016a) A need for change [Online]. Available at http://resomation.com/about/need-for-change/ (Accessed 15 September 2016)

Resomation® (2016b) Who are we [Online]. Available at http://resomation.com/about/who-are-we/ (Accessed 15 September 2016)

Resomation® (2016c) News [Online]. Available at http://resomation.com/news/ (Accessed 15 September 2016)

Rumble, H., Troyer, T., Walter, T. and Woodthorpe, K. (2014) ‘Disposal or dispersal? Environmentalism and final treatment of the British dead’. Mortality, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 243-260 [Online]. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2014.920315 (Accessed 19 September 2016)

Scotland. Cremation and Burial (Scotland) Act 2016, a.s.p. 20.

Sullivan, S. (2009) ‘Resomation®: Update’, Pharos International, vol. 75, pp. 4-8.

Thomas, H. (2010) Resomation: The Debate (Part 1), Pharos International, vol. 76, pp. 4-8.

TNO (2011) Environmental impact of different funeral technologies, Utrecht, TNO, 034.24026.

TNO (2014) Environmental impacts of different funeral techniques – update of prior TNO research [Online]. Available at https://www.tno.nl/en/about-tno/news/2014/12/environmental-impacts-of-different-funeral-techniques-update-of-prior-tno-research/ (Accessed 19 September 2016)

White, S. (2011) ‘The Public Health (Aquification) (England and Wales) Regulations?’. Pharos International, vol. 77, pp. 10-11.

There’ll be a BBQ, much cake (including Toby’s youngest daughter’s famous lemon drizzle cake!) and lots of friendly conversation from lovely #GoodFuneralGuild members.  Bring along your children, dogs, sausages and spouses.  You don’t need to be a #GoodFuneralGuild member to come along.  The curious are very welcome!

If you’d like to come along, please email louise.winter@goodfuneralguide.co.uk

A Guild Gig
Saturday 3rd June from 12pm at Willow Row, Cambridgeshire
Directions here

National Funeral Exhibition 2017

If you’re one of our recommended funeral directors, come along to our stand as soon as you arrive as we may have a little something for you.  #GoodFuneralGuild members – don’t forget to wear your pin with pride!

“It’s a photo taken by someone who would die in 3 months, of her loved ones looking at her, with that knowledge. It’s quite a concept isn’t it? I see the tense smiles as well as the relaxed merry faces. I printed the three photos and joined them together and I put it in her coffin so that she had us all there with her on her journey.” Jo Bousfield

Good friends of the GFG, Jane and Jimmy Edmonds run the Good Grief Project. Set up after they experienced the sudden death of their son Josh, the purpose of the Good Grief Project is not only to share their experience of grief, but also to help others to find ‘an active and creative response to the expression of their grief.’

Yesterday, Jimmy posted these photographs on their website. They were taken by Harry Banks.

Harry’s mother, Jo Bousfield, is a trustee of the Good Grief Project, and Harry was terminally ill when she captured this moment, of the people she loved, looking at her, with the knowledge that she was dying.

Three months after taking the photographs, Harry died, aged 31. 

Read the post here.

Today, somewhere in Scotland, leaders in the field of death, dying and bereavement will end a five-day meeting, and bid each other farewell until 2018, when the 30^th gathering of the International Work Group on Death, Dying and Bereavement will convene.

Membership of the IWG is an honour bestowed by invitation only; founded in 1974 by, among others, Cicely Saunders and Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, the IWG is a non-profit organisation whose members must demonstrate leadership within thanatology within their country, and typically on an international level as well. While the majority of members are either in academia or the medical care professions, the organisation includes others who share a common bond of passionate intellectual and personal interest in the field of thanatology.

For the last week, around 140 people from around the world have been engaged in in-depth discussions on various death related topics – it is a kind of think tank on thanatology, with no agenda other than to explore the agreed upon topics. And last Saturday, the group hosted an open meeting in Glasgow where the public were able to glimpse the calibre and quality of some of the thought leaders and practitioners involved. The GFG was privileged to be invited to co-host a workshop at this conference on social aspects of death, dying and bereavement, and to attend the plenary presentations from some of the finest thinkers on the subject of our time. We also got to have dinner with the presenters the evening beforehand, which was quite an experience!

The one-day conference was hosted by Dame Barbara Monroe DBE, former Chief Executive of St. Christopher’s Hospice, a trustee of Marie Curie and Special Commissioner of the Royal Hospital Chelsea. Barbara’s opening address was challenging and bracing; “…some of our efforts to engage the public in talking about death, dying and bereavement have looked like us talking to ourselves” she said, “we need to find a wider variety of words.”

Professor Robert Neimeyer Ph.D from the University of Memphis, author of 30 books and almost 500 articles and book chapters and editor of the journal Death Studies was the first speaker, presenting psychological insights on ‘The Importance of Meaning’ alongside Dr. Neil Thompson, a highly experienced social work professional who offered sociological insights to the same subject.

Bob’s presentation was illustrated with a brief case study of an impoverished African-American mother contending with the murder of her young adult son. He explored the concept of adaptive grieving and the move towards integrated grief (the point where the finality of death is viscerally acknowledged). Neil reflected on a holistic approach to meaning, the personal, cultural and structural influences and the fluidity of an individual’s experience. He explored the sociological context within which grief is experienced, the cultural norms and expectations, the structural power relations of class, race, gender, age, disability and language group frameworks which inform the unique experience of each individual.

The second presentation was given by Darcy Harris Ph.D, an Associate Professor and Thanatology Co-ordinator at King’s University, London, Ontario with a background in oncology, palliative care nursing and bereavement counselling. Darcy’s presentation examined grief from the perspective of social justice (the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights).

Most clinicians in end of life care and bereavement care are trained with an emphasis on the experience of the individual, often in isolation of the various contexts in which their lives are socially situated. Darcy where to buy cialis online forum explored the social and political underpinnings that inform individual perceptions, experiences and expectations, and discussed the social rules for grief, which cover who can be grieved, whether the relationship is valid, how long grief can last, how it is expressed / manifest and whether the type of death is acceptable.

Frustratingly, all four workshops were held simultaneously, leading to ‘workshop envy’ from both participants and workshop hosts – the three other sessions being held while we co-hosted a workshop on ‘Whose funeral is it?’ with Scottish bereavement consultant John Birrell were entitled ‘Ordinary People, Extraordinary Things, a community response to bereavement’, ‘Maximising child and family support after a bereavement – the role of networking’ and ‘Building community resilience and bringing remembrance into the open – Scotland’s answer to Dia de los Muertos’.

The afternoon continued with two further plenary sessions, the first from Professor David Clark, a sociologist at the University of Glasgow who leads the University of Glasgow End of Life Studies Group and who has a particular knowledge of the life and work of Dame Cicely Saunders, having edited her letters and selected publications. He is working on a biography to be published in 2018 on the centenary of her birth.

David’s presentation explored end of life issues around the world in the light of the anticipated significant increase in the global annual death toll from the current 56,000,000 people who currently die each year. He noted that the number of deaths in the entire 20^th century is less than the number of people currently alive, and how the underlying assumption in palliative care is that the developing world should at some point catch up with the developed world – ‘the waiting room of history’ as conceptualised by historian Dipesh Chakrabarty.

David outlined his current work in a Wellcome Trust funded project investigating and conceptualising a comprehensive taxonomy of interventions at the end of life. His contribution was described by Dame Monroe as ‘a breath of academic fresh air’.

The final speaker of the day was Dr. Kenneth J. Doka, Professor of Gerontology and Senior Consultant to the Hospice Foundation in America. A prolific author (see here), Ken’s presentation highlighted the way that a sociological perspective has informed his work in thanatology, through a selective review of the work of pioneers in the field, including Durkheim, Talcott Parsons and Robert Fulton. He covered the dimensions of disenfranchised grief and the differences between intuitive and instrumental grief, issues arising from dissonant grief, grieving styles and post-mortem identity, and public and private grief in a gallop through the many aspects of his expertise.

It was an extraordinary experience to listen to such learned theorists and academics expound on their work in the area of death, dying and bereavement. The considered and thoughtful presentations were thought provoking and inspiring, and, like many of the other attendees, we came away feeling grateful to have been there to listen and absorb.

The International Work Group may not be well known outside academic circles, but the innovation and leadership that flows from the meeting of these minds influences both research and practice in the field of dying, death and bereavement, and ultimately affects us all.

We were privileged to meet some of the most influential thought leaders of our time in this field, and would like to thank John Birrell, Chair of the Planning Group for his kind invitation to take part in the conference.