I beg to differ. I think in many cases there is very much a need to know, especially if the death points to some sort of institutional mistake or technical mishap or personal tragedy that needs to be investigated. For example:
- A software failure in a plane
- A mechanical fault in a car
- Medical negligence in a hospital
- Suicide after persistent bullying
- An overdose of a fashionable drug
- The unexpected side-effect of a medicine
Nerissa Regnier, 45, from California died of covid in December after being told seven times by her healthcare provider that she shouldn't be vaccinated because the vaccine contained a "live virus" (which is untrue). So because her death was publicised, anyone who's told about the "live virus" now knows it's nonsense.
There must be hundreds of cases like that, where surprising (or even unsurprising) causes of death lead to beneficial changes. Yes, you might want to be evasive out of embarrassment or shame, but if that allows institutional failures or avoidable tragedies to continue, isn't that a big missed opportunity?
I still think frankness is better than secrecy.
I still stand by my ‘nobody’s business.’ In a lot of your examples, it’s already being made public knowledge. And everyone knows that many people die every year from suicide or drug overdose. That doesn’t stop anyone else from taking their own life or indulging in drugs. If those in grief don’t want people knowing info about their loss, I respect that.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: But presumably they only became public knowledge because the family publicised the cause of death and what led to it? And yes, many people die of suicide or an overdose, but every new case that occurs increases the effort to tackle the problems.
DeleteI agree with B, plus all the deaths on your list would need an inquest as I mentioned in my previous comment - they take time.
ReplyDeleteSx
Ms Scarlet: See my reply to Bijoux. Sure, inquests take time, but the verdict can still galvanise people into addressing a serious problem.
DeleteYes I agree with these circumstances Nick, I though your previous post referred to cause of death that wasn't out of the ordinary.
ReplyDeletePolly: Yes, I guess I was focusing on the more routine causes of death, but when the issue of the "need to know" (or not know) came up, I thought I should respond to that.
DeleteOne of my challenges lately has been ascertaining the deaths from covid of oldies. Vaxed? Unvaxed? In care homes? At homes? Contract traced or untraced?
ReplyDeleteVery relevant stats to us oldies. But crickets from all government departments.
XO
WWW
www: And did they die strictly from covid or also from other pre-existing medical conditions? I had to google crickets (absolute silence). Not an expression you hear in the UK.
DeleteAll of the incidents you refer to would require a coronial investigation. A coroner had vast powers of investigation and in making recommendations.
ReplyDeleteThe dead individuals and the loved ones are still entitled to be the gatekeepers of what details are made widely available
Kylie: They may well require an inquest. I don't know much about inquests. I read that in the UK the coroner's conclusions are made available to the public, in which case the family can't control what details are released.
DeleteThis post and the one preceding were interesting, Nick, and especially the comments both pro and con releasing the cause of death. It seems to me that people are more curious when a well known person (celebrity) dies then someone lesser known, like a neighbor.
ReplyDeleteBeatrice: Very true, the death of a celeb is always a sensation while the death of an ordinary person usually attracts little interest. Which is why we should publicise the latter when there's a cause of death that seems a bit irregular.
DeleteInteresting how much this subject appears to be on your mind.
ReplyDeleteDare I say it, most causes of death will be obvious. Ranging from a motorcycle accident of a friend's son to despair with the world (another friend's son) and taking the short cut. Cancer (fourth stage) is difficult to hide - even by the most secretive, no, let's call them discreet. Felled by a stroke? You'll be hard pushed to keep that within the family.
We have a fascination with death - death, or rather dying, being the last frontier. However, and you give a few lurid examples above, a person is NOT defined by how they died.Tut tut - we knew it all along what would happen to Uncle Charlie. And that is where, maybe - I am only speculating here - shame, that most haunting human sentiment (apart from guilt) kicks in. Leaving pride aside, a person's dignity should be preserved. If only by their relatives and obituary writers. Chance being a fine thing.
On the whole, I am not a psychologist, our knowing the cause of death gives us, the still alive, some sort of closure, indeed satisfaction. Nothing wrong with that. But please let's not make disclosure into some sort of public service.
U
Ursula: I'm not suggesting at all that someone is defined by how they died. As for dignity, should dignity be given priority over pointing out some cause of death that needs urgent attention? I do see disclosure as a public service, if it prompts a necessary improvement to a hospital regime or a school's bully culture or whatever.
DeleteI agree with you
ReplyDeleteBut it has to be done with sensitivity
Often the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM being mentioned is a godsend to those who are hurting
John: Yes, I would have thought that if the elephant in the room (suicide, overdose etc) was made public, that could actually help those concerned to deal with it.
DeleteSometimes, there's a need to know the cause of death if it could hurt others. Other than that though, I see no need to know.
ReplyDeleteMary: Certainly if the cause of death is something routine and unremarkable, there's no need to know. Though sometimes an apparently routine cause can hide something less routine.
Delete