Just last week according to this article from Newsweek “Southwest Airlines announced that it was ending a policy that allowed plus-size travelers to book an extra seat without extra costs. Under the new rules, passengers must buy two seats if they cannot fit on one, but refunds may be considered if the flight does not sell out.”

With that decision, according to the same article, Southwest joins United Airlines, Spirit Airlines, and Frontier Airlines as airlines that require a second seat be bought in these circumstances.

We also learned last week from this article from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) that airlines are not the only industry wrestling with the sales requirements to wide-bodied people.  The article tells of Danescourt Cemetery in Tettenhall, City of Wolverhamption where the council had announced a 20% surcharge on the sale of six-foot wide cemetery lots as opposed to the standard five-foot wide lots.

According to my exchange rate math, the six-foot wide rate would be (in U.S. dollars) US $ 3,650 per lot as compared to a normal five-foot lot rate of about US $ 2,920.

According to the article the city defended the move “saying that it was responding to an increase in demand for larger graves, with obesity rates of 33.3% in the city compared with a national average of 25.9%.”  The city also commented that “Local authorities in Telford, Birmingham, Walsall, Coventry and Staffordshire have already implemented charges for wider coffins.”  

The Wolverhampton City Council has already opened a dedicated section for six-foot wide burial plots at the cemetery.

Mr. Ross Hickton, described as a funeral director with Hickton Family Funeral Directors, an independent company with seven branches across the West Midlands spoke against the idea.  According to the article, Mr. Hickton is quoted as saying, “Essentially it’s a fat tax. You know people have paid into the system their entire life, paid their council tax to Wolverhampton Council, and for them to be told 20% more because of the size of their loved one, it’s not really acceptable or fair.” 

Matthew Crawley, Chief Executive at the Institute for Cemetery and Crematorium Management stated, “You have a finite amount of space to work with; therefore if you need to eat into a grave next door, say, then that needs to be accounted for.  You also have to account for the idea that digging the grave itself will also need extra equipment to keep it safe.”

Following this discussion, the council made the decision not to proceed with the (extra charge) plans.  It was noted, however, that extra charges for larger plots was “(a) common practice taken by councils around the country where higher charges cover the costs of providing a larger plot”.

A little more information on the subject—  The National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors surveyed its members to ask if their local councils charged more for wider plots.  They received 165 replies with 25% answering in the affirmative.

The BBC contacted 27 local authorities in the West Midlands and just over a third said they charged more for wider burial plots.

Related — Another article on this decision from The Guardian.  “Wolverhamton Council rethinks plan to introduce premiums on wider graves”. (Great Britain)

Related — Another article on this decision from The Independent.  “Council slammed for charging ‘fat tax’ on burials of larger coffins.”

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

Funeral Director Daily take —  I see both sides of this issue.  Anecdotally, I always felt nervous when I had to tell a family that an “oversize” or “larger than average” casket might be needed for their loved one.  It was a part of funeral arrangements that had to be done and it was never comfortable to do so.

I will also tell you that when I first started working in the profession in 1980 we had about one in every seventy-five casketed deaths that required an “oversize” casket.  By the time I retired that ratio went to about one in twenty. . . so, on average, people who died were larger.

There are lots of theories on why this is so and I use judgement very judiciously so I don’t even want to venture an opinion.  In some cases it may be out of a person’s own actions or ability to be smaller. It’s difficult for me to pass judgement on that individual.

It reminds me that we all live with different situations.  As for me, I’m simply grateful for my situation.  I have a devotional quiet time every single day and I have a lot to be thankful for.  During that time I always make a point to thank the Lord that at 67 years of age he allows me to be able to run a couple of miles daily and also  gives me the health to play golf.  I’m so very grateful to Him for that ability  — even if I’m a slow runner and a poor golfer!!

Trying to be accommodating to people of all situations is part of our duty as funeral directors. The large human-being requiring an “oversize casket” or larger grave is one of those instances.  However like airlines, funeral homes and cemeteries should be allowed to recoup the extra costs of that accommodation as well.

I’m guessing that oversize seats, caskets, and cemetery lots will continue to be a tricky and touchy subject.

By the Way — I don’t like the term “oversize” or “plus size”.  However, I had a difficult time coming up with the right term.  Take a look at the, at least in my opinion, awful synonyms for “oversize casket” that the thesaurus gave me.  You can see their suggestions here.

More news from the world of Death Care:

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,199 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”

There is an interesting case, which you can read about and see a news video of here, blowing through the tradewinds of Hawaii at this time concerning the eligibility of burial in a Veterans’ Administration National Cemetery.  The case concerns the potential of a dis-interment of U.S. Army veteran and Honorably Discharged Dr. Robert Browne who has been buried in Honolulu’s Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific since 1991.

The case has prompted a letter from the Hawaii congressional delegation, including United States Senator Mazie Hirono to the secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affair “requesting legislation allowing the VA to review and initiate disinterment proceedings for Dr. Brown”.

From the article that I read it appears that the disinterment stems from a person who “identifies as a survivor of sexual abuse by Browne and has family members buried at the Honolulu cemetery”.

Of interest in this situation is the fact that Dr. Browne died before he was ever charged with the crimes but the Kamehameha Schools of Hawaii paid a settlement of $80 million to (his alleged) victims.  Another factor in the case against Dr. Browne is that his death was ruled a suicide.

The letter to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs makes this statement according to the article from Hawaii News Now, “The presence of an alleged serial abuser in a place reserved for those who served with distinction is deeply painful and unacceptable to survivors and the families of those buried alongside him.”

Funeral Director Daily take:  I think that this is a very complicated case under the current rules of VA cemetery eligibility.  In general, here are the simple requirements for burial eligibility in a VA national cemetery:

Veterans, service members, spouses, and dependents may be eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery, as well as other benefits, if they meet one of these requirements.

One of these must be true:

• The person qualifying for burial benefits is a Veteran who didn’t receive a dishonorable discharge, or
• The person qualifying for burial benefits is a service member who died while on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty for training, or
• The person qualifying for burial benefits is the spouse or surviving spouse of a Veteran (even if they remarried after the Veteran’s death), or
• The person qualifying for burial benefits is the minor child of a Veteran (even if the Veteran died first) or, in some cases, the unmarried adult dependent child of a Veteran

 

Certainly Dr. Browne qualifies under the first criteria.  But, as I continued to look at criteria for exemptions to those requirements there are possible exemptions that could, in my opinion, make Dr. Browne ineligible.  However, they seem a little bit in the areas of gray when it comes to this situation.

A couple of those exeptions include the following:

Veterans aren’t eligible if:

• They’ve been convicted of a federal or state capital crime and may receive a sentence of imprisonment for life or the death penalty—and the conviction is final, or

• Clear and convincing evidence shows that they’ve committed a federal or state capital crime, but they couldn’t have a trial due to flight to avoid prosecution or death

• They were convicted of a Tier III sex offense and sentenced to a minimum of life imprisonment—and the conviction is final.

My next cause of action was to look up “Capital Crime” and it is defined as “A capital crime, also known as a capital offense, is a crime that is punishable by the death penalty.  These crimes are considered the most serious offenses under the law and vary by jurisdiction, but often include aggravated forms of murder, treason, and terrorism”. 

So, if that definition is true, then Capital Crime does not seem to fit this situation as reason for disinterment nor does the conviction of a sex offense because Dr. Brown died before he was charged and/or convicted.

I want you to know that I’m not taking a side here but I do find there to be interesting arguments on each side.  It will be interesting to see how the situation plays out.

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

Final Thought — For the first time in my life I was called to jury duty this summer and was selected to a jury for a short trial.  I will say that when I found myself in the jury box for the beginning of the trial I felt the huge weight of justice on my shoulders.  I’m relieved that the case did not have repercussions of prison time — it was a simple case of a defendent accused of violating a restraining order against loud noise in an apartment complex.

Even though the case seemed fairly straight forward and simple, I was struck by how emotionally drained I was after listening to the case and deliberating with fellow jurors.  It was an interesting lesson for me to learn about the responsibilities of a “jury of your peers” in the American justice system.

I’m certainly glad that I will not be sitting in and trying to figure out the justice in this Hawaii case.

Related Article — “Eligibility for Burial in a VA National Cemetery”.  U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs

More news from the world of Death Care:

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,194 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”

If you have been a funeral director for any length of time you have found yourself in a cemetery on a beautiful summer day when after the formal committal service the family remains to visit and you see young children play on cemetery monuments.  However, as this archived CBS News article mentions, children have been killed when those monuments fall on them.

Powys County of Great Britain is now set to do something about that.  You can read this article from the Shropeshire Star where the county is set to begin an inspection program of county cemeteries in February.  According to the article, inspectors will give each monument one of three possible ratings:

• Category 1:  Unsafe and in need of immediate attention
• Category 2:  Unstable but unlikely to cause an immediate health and safety risk
• Catogory 3:  Stable and no action required

The article goes on to say what will happen with a Category 1 monument:  “A Category 1 memorial will be laid down or made safe by other means at the time of inspection. A red notice will be placed on the memorial/grave advising that the memorial is unsafe and providing details of how to contact the council.”

Here’s what will happen with a Category 2 monument:  “A Category 2 memorial will have an amber notice placed in a suitable position on the memorial stating that the memorial is unsafe and how to contact the council. If after the expiry of six months from the date of inspection the memorial has not been fixed it will be laid down or made safe by other methods as appropriate.”

Councillor Richard Church, Cabinet Member for a Safer Powys, made the following comment about the program, “We have to be sure that our cemeteries are a safe place to visit and any memorials that are potentially dangerous are made secure.”

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

Funeral Director Daily take:  This makes all the sense in the world. . . nobody wants someone to get hurt in a cemetery.  I’m also of the opinion that as insurance company loss prevention officers see this inspection program, we may be seeing more situations like this if a cemetery wants to continue to have insurance coverage.

The biggest issue that I see with the program and its potential expansion is the cost or repairing some of these monuments to a “safe” condition.  Once a large monument has lost its stability, it is not inexpensive to right that situation. . . . and many times a 100-year old monument will have no heirs to take care of the costs.  And, many cemeteries cannot afford the costs.

I’ve mentioned before, I’m a big fan of permanent memorials for posterity sake.  However, the people in Powys County do show that having that mindset does incur some costs that may not be easy to fund.

More news from the world of Death Care:

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,120 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”