I can’t help but think this statement says a lot more about you than about them.
No, it says equal things about the both the deceased and me. OTOH, your comment says more about you than me.
But what people are saying is the obits already give tons of specific information. Children’s and grandchildren’s name and spouses’ names, career, accomplishments, favorite past times, places they lived, things they did, successes, and probably a lot more.
Why is there some stigma against a simple acknowledgement of cause of death? Why is it considered a fundamentally different piece of information? We all die. I don’t care if anyone knows how I died once it happens.
I get what people are saying. I think they are wrong in what they are saying.
No one is saying providing it is wrong. However feeling entitled to that information, or any information, is not cool. Hesitation to reveal that info is not necessarily due to a stigma, it’s just deeply personal. Usually ones job, children and grand children, are fairly public knowledge. But not always- if you had a mysterious second family, or a job you didn’t care about, or died in compromising circumstances… you’re not obligated to share any of it!
Cause of death is extremely sensitive- back when entire families were ostracized by AIDS, for example. Or if you watched your love one be demolished by ALS or Huntington’s. Why should the family have to replay that pain so soon after the death, just to satisfy someone’s curiosity. A person who, apparently, isn’t close enough to the family to already know?
A little decency and respect for the bereaved and give them the benefit of the doubt isn’t that hard.
(1) I didn’t say it is harming me by leaving it out.
(2) I didn’t say I’m entitled to the information
I’m just saying don’t tell me it’s not my business. If you want me to know about the death then the next natural question—how did it happen?—is a perfectly reasonable one.
I can accept the answer “I don’t feel like telling you,” but I don’t accept “I’m going to give you partial information about what I believe is a notable event but then tell you you’re being nosy when you ask the most logical, reasonable, and natural question that follows.”
Question for those of you who think that the cause of death should be listed in the obituary:
Bob Saget passed away today. His death will be all over the news for the next couple of days. Do you think we deserve to know the cause of his death?
Why is it difficult to understand that at this final rite of passage, the person’s loved ones want the life they lived to be the focus. Not how they died.
To the extent that divorce is a public, legal matter administered by the public courts, and to the extent that the law requires a finding of a legal cause, yes, I expect that legal cause to be part of the public record. It’s a legal matter; it’s a public matter.
It’s in the public pleadings; there’s no reason to leave it out of the public announcement. The same way when someone is sentenced for a crime, you state what crime that person was found guilty of.
(Of course, if it’s a no fault state, then “no fault” is the reasonably pertinent information to be given.)
To me it doesn’t matter whether we “deserve” it. But I expect the journalists who are writing about this matter to follow up and eventually reveal the cause of death (or explain why they haven’t been able to determine it), and I believe that to be absolutely an appropriate role for the press.
Generally, as a legal matter—and in my view as an ethical and moral matter—dead people have no right to privacy.
Deserve to know the cause of his death? No, of course not. But he is a well-known celebrity and people will be curious and interested in why he died. That’s normal and not morbid. There’s probably nothing suspicious about his death, but if it’s kept a secret people will speculate and I don’t think that benefits anyone. The bottom line is if the family wants to keep it secret they have the right not to talk about it, but keeping everyone who will know how he died quiet is a different story. I bet there are already reporters digging in to find out how and why he died…
For the record, I am also curious as to the cause of his death. But if his family wishes to keep it secret (yeah, I know, good luck with that), I’m not going to be upset.
Obituaries (much like funerals) are about the life lived, and for the living.
‘Journalists’, generally do not write obits. Cf many posts above.
Wrong. Read the HIPAA privacy rule.
And it’s entirely possible that, right now, nobody knows the cause of death. In cases where obituaries don’t include a cause of death, sometimes it may be because the cause isn’t known.
When Lizzie Borden’s parents were killed, the same paper whose headlines screamed of the murders also carried this tactful little death notice:
Died, in her home at 92 Second St., Fall River, Mass., on Aug. 4, 1892, Abby D. Borden, second wife of Andrew Borden, age sixty-five; also died at eleven o’clock at the same time and place, Andrew J. Borden, age seventy.
They forgot to include the word “unexpectedly”.
Of course they often do. News stories—not just paid announcements—are also called obituaries. And the reference was to news reports about Bob Saget’s death. Journalists wrote about it today and they will most likely continue to write about it and attempt to find out a cause of death.
HIPAA is not a general privacy law. It is about how certain kinds of entities and persons in certain jobs must deal with personal medical information obtained in the course of medical treatment. It doesn’t create a general right to privacy for dead people. If I find out someone’s health details, I can tell everyone in the world, publish it, post it on social media, and HIPAA has nothing to say about it.
Actually, it’s a reason too. When I did my father’s funeral notice, I didn’t include the cause of death because it wasn’t anyone’s business. It wasn’t shameful or anything, just private. There were lots of other health-related items that also weren’t included, for the same reason. Events of his life that weren’t private were included.
That’s the difference. It doesn’t seem that hard to understand, at least not to me.
There was no stigma to my father’s death. He was old enough with enough prior medical issues that death was not shocking. He died in an entirely non-embarrassing way. He drove to a club to play tennis with a friend. When he arrived he felt bad enough that his friend called 911. By the time the medics arrived he was unresponsive, and he was dead when they got him to the hospital. He died of a pulmonary embolism.
I can say that now. But it was awkward to say it immediately upon his death. I was in shock from his passing, which, while not totally unexpected, was very sudden, without any real warning.
I forget what i said in the Facebook note. I didn’t actually know it was a pulmonary embolism (we learned that from the autopsy.) I knew it was sudden, but was afraid that if i said “sudden and unexpected”, which is how it felt, people would assume “suicide”. I didn’t want to go into endless detail, either
Talking about, writing about, the recent death of someone you are close to is hard.
I’m sure it’s harder if the cause IS embarrassing. They died of AIDS. They killed themselves. They were drunk and drove off a bridge. They were murdered by their John. They overdosed on drugs. So many causes of death that add to the pain of the survivors.
I think the cause of death is part of a person’s record. I certainly don’t begrudge journalists trying to find it out to report about it when a famous person dies. But i also don’t begrudge the family for not listing it in the obit they publish.