From cardiac anaesthetist to humanist officiant
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.748 (Published 25 September 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:748
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The funeral of Roger Fletcher's father obviously became part of the
crematorium assembly-line which is, I understand, common in England. But
the major fault does not lie with religion, nor with the minister who took
it in an unsatifactory attempt to provide something, in an impossibly
short time frame, to people he or she had probably never met, any more
than the fault for inadequate consultations lies with the GP who is forced
by the system to see a patient for an average of only 7 minutes. The
fault lies with the undertaker who opted in to that system and, I fear,
with the relatives who agreed to it without asking how Mr Fletcher's
character and achievements would be properly celebrated or contributing
the material to make it possible.
Roger Fletcher describes what any conscientious priest or minister,
or non-religious funeral celebrant, would do in preparing for a funeral,
especially that of someone unknown to them. And recognition of a full
life can be made even, as with my father, within the frame of the old 1662
Book of Common Prayer service, as well as within that of more modern
versions. If the family had made use of the vicar of their local parish
they are likely, despite their lack of religious commitment, to have had a
much more appropriate service, in a venue where many could join in marking
his father's life and death, without the time constraints of the 'crem
assembly-line'.
And I suspect that Roger's attachment to his religion of humanism
both colours his view of the evidence for God [many distinguished
scientists believe in God] and leads to his unjustified implication that
the more remarkable people request non-religious funerals. Everyone is
remarkable in some way, and it is often only at their funerals that we
discover just how remarkable - for example, the fact that the Dean of my
medical school for some of my student years had been brought up in a
Dickensian orphanage.
Proper preparation for a funeral is important not just to those
officiating, but to the bereaved. When my 26 year old son was killed the
organisation of the funeral service [including the rewriting of parts of
the NZ Prayerbook form of service] and arranging for people to speak about
him and his achievements, was a task that, painful though it was, helped
to preserve our sanity.
The task of funeral celebrants, whether or not religious, is to
support and sustain the bereaved through that traumatic, tearful and
rudderless time, so that they can express their grief, celebrate the dead,
and be prepared for the long, painful struggle towards acceptance of their
loss.
Rather like a good GP's job, really.
Competing interests:
I am a member of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia and a Lay Representative on its General Synod/te Hinota Whanui, and I represent that church on the Anglican Consultative Council.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Belief and Evidence
This article contained statements that I am surprised would go
unchecked. Dr Fletcher states that "Religion is rejected on the grounds
that there simply isn't enough evidence for belief in a caring, loving God
who created the universe and answers our prayers." For Dr Fletcher this
then leads to the obvious logical conclusion that "... the humanist takes
an "evidence based" or scientific view of the world as opposed to a belief
based on."
Whilst I would hold that a belief based world view is no less valid
than an evidence based one, this article implies that the humanist view is
superior because of its scientific rigour. I would like to suggest,
however, that the theist and atheist views rely on similar foundations of
both evidence and belief.
The old mistake of confusing evidence with proof has occured here.
Atheists often state that there is not enough evidence to believe in God.
The onus is then on the theist to prove that God exists.
I believe in God, and I have evidence for that. There are
philosophical arguments, historical arguments and logical arguments. There
is also the subjective, but immense wealth of peoples' personal
experiences of God. However, I cannot prove that he exists.
There is evidence in all the same disciplines that no God exists. But
again no definite proof.
In this respect atheism and theism are the same. The atheist looks at
the evidence and arrives at a decision. The theist does the same and
arrives at a different decision. Both positions have an evidence base, it
just depends which evidence base you choose to believe.
Competing interests:
I believe in God
Competing interests: No competing interests