Religious funerals for prominent nonbelievers

B0jangles

seamus wrote: »

You don't even need a body to have a funeral.
It's a memorial for the individual who is already gone. The presence of a corpse is merely symbolic.

Wicker caskets are becoming increasingly more popular and they're considerably cheaper (and better for the environment). I assume crematoriums will take them. They'd burn easier and produces less toxic fumes than a traditional coffin.

Mount Jerome does; I was at a ceremony at the crematorium there a few years ago where the standard coffin was replaced with a very beautifully woven wicker casket. Apparently cardboard coffins aren't accepted in all crematoriums in the ROI, something to do with the air filtration systems they use.


http://www.greencoffinsireland.com/coffins


I was just talking about this stuff with my mother last week - she wants totally non-religious, and as close to being burying in a cardboard box as possible

On the general question, I'd be strongly of the opinion that any ceremony after someone dies should respect and represent what they themselves would want. What's the point otherwise? What exactly is being celebrated, if not the person who just died?

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And if those parents, peers, teachers and extended families all do the church wedding and funerals because they are the "done thing", then change might eventually still come but how much longer will it take than it should?
My evidence is how any discussion about removing religion from school or politics invariably getting "tradition" and "did me no harm" responses, both in this forum and in real life. Even threads on removing the Angelus get the same responses.

Not seeing your point here. People are clearly entirely within their rights to follow any tradition they choose once they're not unduly imposing on others. This is where weddings and funerals are entirely different from education. Education is the primary place where the church is exerting undue influence to prop up their own power base, very often against the will of the public. Everyone has free choice between all available options when it comes to weddings and funerals.

Nor do I see anything in your post that corresponds in any meaningful sense to evidence of your previous assertion, i.e. that attending the occasional church funeral or wedding is propping up cultural Catholicism.

smacl

B0jangles wrote: »

On the general question, I'd be strongly of the opinion that any ceremony after someone dies should respect and represent what they themselves would want. What's the point otherwise? What exactly is being celebrated, if not the person who just died?

A religious person could distinguish what a person might want and what they think is best for them. I got into some heated argument with relatives when I point blank refused to let them have a priest say a few words at my father's funeral for example. They were horrified and didn't attend as a result, which did annoy me on one level. Their intent was clearly to look after the best interests of my father's eternal soul, which while laudable in one sense is pig ignorant and deeply disrespectful from another.

B0jangles

I'd certainly think it was both pig-ignorant and deeply disrespectful - would they have the same opinion if he'd been buried (by his own choice) according to the tenets of another religion?

They are surely free to say prayers for the repose of his soul, to light candles for him, even to have a mass said for him, but to assume the right to reshape the ceremony from being as the deceased wanted it to be, to what they think it ought to be, seems extremely rude.

smacl

B0jangles wrote: »

I'd certainly think it was both pig-ignorant and deeply disrespectful - would they have the same opinion if he'd been buried (by his own choice) according to the tenets of another religion?

Yes. In my experience many religious people have little or no respect for other people's religious beliefs.

They are surely free to say prayers for the repose of his soul, to light candles for him, even to have a mass said for him, but to assume the right to reshape the ceremony from being as the deceased wanted it to be, to what they think it ought to be, seems extremely rude.

Pretty much what happened. Moral of the story is if you've preferences about your funeral arrangements and have family who aren't likely to honour those preferences, organise and fund your funeral in advance of dying.

Bannasidhe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a nice idea, but do we have enough forests to accomodate large numbers of these burials?


Terrible costs there. Do you really need embalming in Ireland, given that we tend to wrap things up quickly in 2 or 3 days. If you're keeping the coffin closed and going for cremation, what's the point in embalming?

Well, more forests (of native species not that horrendous sitka pine) would help with our national carbon footprint so that's a win win. Do we have enough space to accommodate large numbers of burials in dedicated graveyards?

We embalmed (I didn't want to...) because it was an open coffin and longer than the usual 2/3 days to allow people to travel.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I find most religious funerals generic and devoid of the life of the deceased. Some priest who possibly didn't even know them uttering formulaic platitudes that are responded to automatically. It could literally be any body in the box.

I was at two funerals in Kerry in the last year or so - both were forumulaic and impersonal.

The first, a couple of days before christmas 2018, was for a father whose four kids each spoke for between one and two minutes, while the rest of the forgettable and forgotten service, lasting perhaps an hour, came straight from whatever prayerbook happens to guide these kind of things.

The second funeral was a few weeks back and was worse - the women who had died had no children, so her sister stood up and gave a short speech of around two minutes. The priest also spoke about the deceased a slightly greater length, but the basic details appeared to have been culled from the register of births, marriages and deaths alone and nobody, having heard the priest's comments, was any the wiser regarding her rather splendid character. An untalented choir and organist filled out the service with predictable music, performed badly.

Hard to say whether the immediate families in either case were consoled much by the obvious devotion to ritual and institution on the part of the priests carrying out the ritual on behalf of the institution - but that was basically all the families got.

donspeekinglesh

I wonder if it would be possible to put a clause in your will saying that the named people have been told about your funeral wishes, and if they don't follow them then their share of your estate is going to the local dog's home or wherever.

Peregrinus

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

I wonder if it would be possible to put a clause in your will saying that the named people have been told about your funeral wishes, and if they don't follow them then their share of your estate is going to the local dog's home or wherever.

Yes, this is possible (subject to any legal rights your spouse may have to a share of your estate).

But your will typically isn't read until after you have been burned or buried. So if you want this threat to have any influence over the funeral choices your nearest and dearest make for you, it's important that you tell them that your will contains such a clause.

lazygal

robindch wrote: »

I was at two funerals in Kerry in the last year or so - both were forumulaic and impersonal.

The first, a couple of days before christmas 2018, was for a father whose four kids each spoke for between one and two minutes, while the rest of the forgettable and forgotten service, lasting perhaps an hour, came straight from whatever prayerbook happens to guide these kind of things.

The second funeral was a few weeks back and was worse - the women who had died had no children, so her sister stood up and gave a short speech of around two minutes. The priest also spoke about the deceased a slightly greater length, but the basic details appeared to have been culled from the register of births, marriages and deaths alone and nobody, having heard the priest's comments, was any the wiser regarding her rather splendid character. An untalented choir and organist filled out the service with predictable music, performed badly.

Hard to say whether the immediate families in either case were consoled much by the obvious devotion to ritual and institution on the part of the priests carrying out the ritual on behalf of the institution - but that was basically all the families got.

Very similar experience of any church funeral I've been to. And I find the same about church weddings. There's a limited range of suitable readings and prayers recommended by the priest, limited choice of music and programme of events, for want of a better turn of phrase. I can see why people go for the church option, you can basically turn up on the day without having to think too much. And I can appreciate that at a time of stress and grief this can be a comfort. But it doesn't say much about a person for a priest who didn't know them to be a master of ceremonies using prayers and superstition the dead person had no time for in life.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Yes. In my experience many religious people have little or no respect for other people's religious beliefs.

They're worse when it comes to irreligion though.

E.g. a school will respect the wishes of a hindu or muslim family to opt their child out of catholic indoctrination. But a white Irish-born family looking for the same are just "lapsed catholics" or being "awkward".

Ryath

There is a sense of ritual to church funerals and it's what most people are used to and comfortable with. Going to take time for people to accept there's other ways. Often not a fan of the priest eulogising about the deceased, in some funerals I've been to it's amounted to little more than lies about the person life and beliefs and their fate. In fairness I have been to others where it has been true and religion has been a huge part of their life.

I was raised catholic but we had a civil wedding and our children aren't baptised. They go to a catholic school but it hasn't rubbed on them at all! They read/do they're own thing during religion class. Not so sure what will happen in secondary school though, we really only have catholic school options available.

Hopefully it's not an issue by the time we die, our children know us and share our beliefs. The issue would be if one of us was to die young. My siblings certainly understand I'm an atheist, one of them is also but the others are less clear-cut. I'd would think most are lapsed bar maybe the one who did have a church wedding.

My mother is very religious though so probably would still push to have a church funeral. She did make a few comments in the early years about my first child not being baptised but think has come to accept it. She may have splashed some salty water and said a prayer over them when I wasn't looking though! And did give her rosary beads around the time her class mates were taking communion andthere's been one or two other religious gifts over the years. My daughter has been just a bit bemused by it as to why she'd give her these things. My wife would be well able for her though if she tried to suggest a religious funeral.

My parents in law are religious, they still go to mass every Sunday and they go to a lot of funerals! They are a lot more respecting though of our beliefs/lack of it and certainly would respect our wishes. I get on very well with them so don't think there would be any problem. The issue would be if something was to happen to both off us at the same time the religious ceremony may just be the default choice. Our children are probably still to young to prevent this. We probably should formalise something or at least make our wishes clear to some of our siblings, it always seems do morbid to bring this up though! I certainly don't want a priest telling lies that my faith in god was so important to me.

My preference is probably for a humanist ceremony it at least give some structure and ritual to the occasion. Like the idea of the Natural burial site, hopefully one opens in the a more central location as Wexford is a bit out of the way for us. Don't want a fancy coffin, cardboard or willow box will do me. Even a cloth sack, bit harder lug me around the place in that though!

I'd be ok with being cremated either but I do like the idea of the natural burial ground. I do like to visit my own fathers and grand parents graves. It is nice to go to their final resting place and just to reflect and remember them and the good times we had. A wood is certainly a nicer place to visit that a field filled with granite monuments. It's one of my favourite past times going for a walk/mountain biking in forests so it's how I'd like to be remembered.

My wife is from a rural area and there is a great sense of community though around funerals there. The neighbours will all come to pay their respects. The grave is still filled by hand so people take turns to shovel the dirt in. 6 or so at a time and you'd only be doing for a couple of minute's doing it before you'd be relieved. It's a nice way to pay your respects.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Not seeing your point here. People are clearly entirely within their rights to follow any tradition they choose once they're not unduly imposing on others. This is where weddings and funerals are entirely different from education. Education is the primary place where the church is exerting undue influence to prop up their own power base, very often against the will of the public. Everyone has free choice between all available options when it comes to weddings and funerals.

Nor do I see anything in your post that corresponds in any meaningful sense to evidence of your previous assertion, i.e. that attending the occasional church funeral or wedding is propping up cultural Catholicism.

It's pretty simple: if all of the weddings and funerals that a child ever attends are performed in churches, then it puts in their head that churches is where those events are supposed to happen.
Your previous link to the census results an increase in people having non-religious weddings. That's good, it means people are beginning to stop having the religious ceremony when they don't actually believe in it. Not every wedding someone comes into contact with is religious, so they stop assuming they should be. I didn't say it wouldn't happen, just that it would be slowed down if people continued to treat church wedding as the default as the default.


Religion in school is probably a much bigger effect on cultural catholicism, I have no problem agreeing, but people having catholic weddings and funerals despite not following the tenets of the religion is the text-book definition of cultural catholicism.

Only ~34% of people attending mass more than once a month according to the ESS(lower if you don't assume the 35.4% who never go to mass are not self-declaring as religious). Yes you have 47.6% of people still having catholic weddings in Ireland and 78% still self-declared as roman catholic in the 2016 census despite. The numbers don't add up, the "cultural catholic" effect hasn't disappeared yet and is still visibile and propped up in the numbers still having catholic weddings.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's pretty simple: if all of the weddings and funerals that a child ever attends are performed in churches, then it puts in their head that churches is where those events are supposed to happen.
Your previous link to the census results an increase in people having non-religious weddings. That's good, it means people are beginning to stop having the religious ceremony when they don't actually believe in it. Not every wedding someone comes into contact with is religious, so they stop assuming they should be. I didn't say it wouldn't happen, just that it would be slowed down if people continued to treat church wedding as the default as the default.


Religion in school is probably a much bigger effect on cultural catholicism, I have no problem agreeing, but people having catholic weddings and funerals despite not following the tenets of the religion is the text-book definition of cultural catholicism.

Only ~34% of people attending mass more than once a month according to the ESS(lower if you don't assume the 35.4% who never go to mass are not self-declaring as religious). Yes you have 47.6% of people still having catholic weddings in Ireland and 78% still self-declared as roman catholic in the 2016 census despite. The numbers don't add up, the "cultural catholic" effect hasn't disappeared yet and is still visibile and propped up in the numbers still having catholic weddings.

Your argument seems to be based around the idea that cultural Catholicism is a "bad thing". Like any other religion or tradition, I don't believe that it is unless it is forced on people who find it objectionable. I'm of the opinion that this is only a major problem in schools. For weddings and funerals it is a matter of choice. Yes, extended families will often add unwanted pressure, but then families add unwanted pressure in all sorts of ways all the time. Kind of intrinsic to being part of a family for many people.

While I'm and atheist I'm also a secularist, which to me means freedom of religion concurrent with freedom from religion. How other people want to practise their traditions, celebrate marriage and mourn death is very much their own concern until such time as they interfere with me or mine. This interference by holier than thou god botherers used to be everywhere when I was growing up but really isn't tolerated by most people any more, other than when trying to gets their kids schooled.

jaxxx

When I go, I want people drinking, eating, having the craic, and remembering me for the hyper-mental-c*nt that I was! If someone goes against my wishes and decides to give me a typical religious funeral, I'll come back and haunt them for the rest of their lives! Scatter my ashes into the sea where all life was born from, then f*ck off and get drunk!

robindch

Ryath wrote: »

My wife is from a rural area and there is a great sense of community though around funerals there. The neighbours will all come to pay their respects. The grave is still filled by hand so people take turns to shovel the dirt in. 6 or so at a time and you'd only be doing for a couple of minute's doing it before you'd be relieved. It's a nice way to pay your respects.

Aye, that's a nice way of doing it.

And much nicer than in Kerry where the Healy-Rae's are a local funeral ritual all to themselves. At the first of the two funerals I mentioned above, when the junior of the two current HR TD's entered the house - uninvited - and pushed his way through the family towards the corpse, somebody was heard, very clearly, to say "Oh, for f*ck's sake, look who's here"

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Aye, that's a nice way of doing it.

And much nicer than in Kerry where the Healy-Rae's are a local funeral ritual all to themselves. At the first of the two funerals I mentioned above, when the junior of the two current HR TD's entered the house - uninvited - and pushed his way through the family towards the corpse, somebody was heard, very clearly, to say "Oh, for f*ck's sake, look who's here"

Had a friend from Kerry say very much the same thing, taking the view that the HRs are akin to the local mafia.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

[...] the HRs are akin to the local mafia.

The word "akin" is doing very little work in that sentence.

The Indo published a piece the other day claiming that the elder HR is worth around €5.4m, and the younger, perhaps €1.6m. Despite these millions, the elder HR has asked his supporters to fund - in what, for all intents and purposes, is an unopposed electoral campaign - €30 each:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2020/micheal-healy-rae-launches-30-raffle-draw-to-fund-election-campaign-38868363.html

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

Your argument seems to be based around the idea that cultural Catholicism is a "bad thing". Like any other religion or tradition, I don't believe that it is unless it is forced on people who find it objectionable. I'm of the opinion that this is only a major problem in schools. For weddings and funerals it is a matter of choice. Yes, extended families will often add unwanted pressure, but then families add unwanted pressure in all sorts of ways all the time. Kind of intrinsic to being part of a family for many people.

While I'm and atheist I'm also a secularist, which to me means freedom of religion concurrent with freedom from religion. How other people want to practise their traditions, celebrate marriage and mourn death is very much their own concern until such time as they interfere with me or mine. This interference by holier than thou god botherers used to be everywhere when I was growing up but really isn't tolerated by most people any more, other than when trying to gets their kids schooled.

Again, see any discussion about removing religion from schools and politics as to why cultural catholicism is a bad thing. People actually following the religion is one thing. But it's people mindlessly defending religious interference despite not agreeing with the religion in any other way at all. The default hold the religion has on the 2 biggest events in your life (3, if you include baptism, which like marriage and funerals, a lot of cultural catholics do as the "done thing") gives that religion a lot of unwarranted power and causes lots of damage in the mean time. We don't the church to control our schools because, in part, we know they will indoctrinate kids to unquestioningly follow the church. Part of that unquestioning following is people having church weddings and funerals despite not following the church in any other way at all. Because it doesn't matter what you actually believe, or even what you actually do. If you appear to follow the church, then they get the same power.


Imagine if society changed and the default was for people to give the deceased the funeral they wanted and then every griever could do their own flavour of mourning themselves (say a prayer, have a mass etc.) All that unwanted pressure would be gone. The life of the deceased would be respected. Everyone would get the solace they believe they needed. Who exactly would loose out?

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Your argument seems to be based around the idea that cultural Catholicism is a "bad thing".

If you'd grown up in the stifling atmosphere of Irish catholicism your tune might be different. Especially if getting your kids any form of non-catholic education was proving difficult... We keep being told how much this country has moved on, but the elephant in the room is that to all intents and purposes the education system hasn't moved on at all. It's catholic schools, protestant schools, and statistical noise.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you'd grown up in the stifling atmosphere of Irish catholicism your tune might be different. Especially if getting your kids any form of non-catholic education was proving difficult... We keep being told how much this country has moved on, but the elephant in the room is that to all intents and purposes the education system hasn't moved on at all. It's catholic schools, protestant schools, and statistical noise.

100% with you when it comes to education, which is the difference between having a tradition forced upon you versus a matter of choice. It isn't the cultural Catholicism that is the problem, it is the mode of delivery where a church with undue influence tries to force-feed their way of doing things on the wider population with successive governments bending to their will. In my mid-50s now with a lifetime spent in this country I don't really need to be lectured on the stifling atmosphere of Irish catholicism. The problem isn't one of culture, as can be seen where the cultural Catholics voted against the dictates of their church in recent referendums, it is one of government.

I also think that attacking cultural Catholicism under then banner of atheism is a serious tactical mistake if the end game is actually to strengthen secularism. Most cultural Catholics have strong secular leanings but are likely to be either neutral or display an antipathy to atheism, which is actively encouraged by those religious bodies opposed to secularism. It is probably worth noting that organised religion has defended its anti-secular position in the past by citing census figures on nominal religion. The response here is to say most of these people aren't 'real Christians'. If you look at the Christianity forum you'll see all of the more zealous Christians over there also say that most of these people aren't real Christians. My take on it from a secular perspective is that if people call themselves Christians, Catholics or Pastafarians that is their right and how they choose to practise their religion, get married or bury their dead, is their own business. By the same token I don't expect or allow them to dictate my similar choices. I think that most of those people you refer to as cultural Catholics would be in broad agreement with this, was certainly the case when I asked the Christians on boards a couple of years back.

Conflating secularism with atheism and placing it on one side of an argument with organised religion in all its guises on the other does secularism no favours in a country where the majority of people are most likely both secularists and cultural Catholics.

Huntergonzo

I've never attended anything but faith based funerals as those were the wishes of the people involved (as far as I know) and I fully respect that.

At present I'm the only member of my family who has left explicit instructions not to have a religious funeral when I go and I would hope they would respect that.

Nobody in my family is particularily religious or even attends mass (they're basically 'catholic' on paper only) so I'm confident enough that my wishes will be respected.

For me the greatest dishonour would be to bring my body into a church and have a charlatan in a cape talk about my love for 'god' and how 'god' loves me and all that outrageous nonsense.

But if that's your thing then have at it.

Hotblack Desiato

Exactly Huntergonzo, one wouldn't want to make a liar out of a man of the cloth, now would one

Smacl, didn't mean to sound lecturing. We just have to look back a few months to the kerfuffle about proposed divestment of one school in Malahide (IIRC) to see how cultural catholicism perpetuates the status quo - apparently no kids would be allowed have their big earner special day out, and Christmas would be cancelled - even though ETs facilitate both. People who should know better taking advantage of the ignorance and fear of change of others. Anyway, there's a whole thread for that.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Smacl, didn't mean to sound lecturing. We just have to look back a few months to the kerfuffle about proposed divestment of one school in Malahide (IIRC) to see how cultural catholicism perpetuates the status quo - apparently no kids would be allowed have their big earner special day out, and Christmas would be cancelled - even though ETs facilitate both. People who should know better taking advantage of the ignorance and fear of change of others. Anyway, there's a whole thread for that.

I think the whole issue with weddings and funerals is primarily a side effect of the undue influence the Catholic church has in our education system and not a problem in itself. I seriously doubt government will have the cojones to deal with education, until such time as the majority of the people make it very clear that the status quo is unacceptable. Ruairi Quinn was probably the last one to have a proper go here and met a brick wall. Unlike abortion and same sex marriage (do you honestly believe the church could give a damn about pregnant women, babies and gays?) getting the church out of schools will be like getting limpet of a rock. In my opinion, alienating the cultural Catholics as a finger wagging atheist serves only to delay this. FWIW, main reason I've never joined Atheist Ireland is that I think conflating atheism with secularism undermines secularism through polarisation.

Hotblack Desiato

Not sure what you mean with your last sentence. AI do work with religious bodies on secularist issues. But there is a need imho for an organisation to articulate the atheist viewpoint and point out the drawbacks of all religion, not just advocate secularism. If someone wanted to set up Secularist Ireland I'm sure AI would support it. RCC conflates secularism with atheism all the time, it suits them to do so as their entrenched position of power is threatened by both atheism and secularism.

And the 'sure what the harm' and 'tradition' brigade in relation to education is surely cultural catholicism in action. Opposing any change which might diminish the influence of the religion you don't really believe in...

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not sure what you mean with your last sentence.

I'm referring to the idea that by conflating atheism with secularism while simultaneously deriding cultural Catholicism you're effectively dividing the larger part of the population into two opposing groups; those who identify as atheist (~10% of the population) and those who identify as Catholic (~79%). Doing this makes secularism appear very much as a minority position. If however you were to make the division along the lines of those who were in favour of a more complete separation between church and state, including removing unrepresentative church influence in our education and health system, the picture would change dramatically. I don't have any strong data supporting this, but my guess is that a large majority of people in this country would identify as secular in this context.

As you say, the RCC is delighted to conflate secularism with atheism as it is a great mechanism to undermine secularism. Having Atheist Ireland as the biggest group promoting a secular worldview in this country favours the RCC no end. Same goes for this forum and even this thread.

storker

A bit OT but serious question, is it possible to specify that something be done to make sure you don't wake up in the coffin? Decapitation or something sharp through the brain? I have a terrible fear of waking up afterwards...

Bannasidhe

storker wrote: »

A bit OT but serious question, is it possible to specify that something be done to make sure you don't wake up in the coffin? Decapitation or something sharp through the brain? I have a terrible fear of waking up afterwards...

If you are embalmed there's zero chance you will still be alive after that.

Or you could see if some of the tactics used historically appeal - you could be "saved by the bell", or opt for having smoke blown up your arse.

https://historycollection.co/buried-alive-common-victorian-era-doctors-used-10-methods-prevent/

I'm sorry - I shouldn't joke. Taphophobia is a genuine fear.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

As you say, the RCC is delighted to conflate secularism with atheism as it is a great mechanism to undermine secularism. Having Atheist Ireland as the biggest group promoting a secular worldview in this country favours the RCC no end. Same goes for this forum and even this thread.

I dunno, but I'm detecting some of the "let's not frighten the horses" thinking that used to surround LGBTQ rights and abortion. Can't use the word "queer". Can't even mention the word "abortion" - when the Abortion Rights Campaign was being set up, as recently as 2012, some involved were worried about putting the A-word in the name so for a few months they were somewhat euphemistically the "Irish Choice Network".

It's not AI's fault that they're the biggest group in the country promoting secularism. Others, and in particular political parties, really need to step up.

This lack of other secularist organisations in no way means AI should play down the explicitly pro-atheism side of their agenda. They have a right to be heard and they put forward good, logical reasons for their stance, while respecting everyone's right to hold differing beliefs.

Like "queer" and "abortion", "atheist" used to be a dirty word in this country and described a concept that most people barely understood, but had been told since the cradle it was something bad that they didn't like. That sort of thing needs to be confronted head-on and AI have imho done a good job.

FWIW I think the cultural catholic consensus is hanging on by its fingernails, most parents of kids going to primary now probably rarely or never went to church when they were kids. It won't survive another generation.

Hotblack Desiato

storker wrote: »

A bit OT but serious question, is it possible to specify that something be done to make sure you don't wake up in the coffin? Decapitation or something sharp through the brain? I have a terrible fear of waking up afterwards...

Organ donation should take care of that (would it be appropriate to put in the Live Organ Transplants scene from Monty Python's Meaning Of Life here?)