Embedded Files
nature. From the interviews it appeared that offering emotional support was a major function of their role. One provider recognized that access to a qualified grief counselor would have been desirable for clients, but all the providers thought that they had developed the necessary skills through experience. Providers gave examples of people returning to visit them after the cremation of their animal, up to several years later, as a way of expressing remembrance. Other bereaved caretakers returned with successive animals. It was clear from the interviews that continual exposure to death and grieving clients was a distressing aspect of working in the industry, and all three discussed the toll this took on their own lives. The companion animal caretakers, as noted, all went through their veterinarian, who dealt with the cremation provider. A frequent theme, consistent with cremation providers’ observations, was the need for support and empathy. The veterinarians were praised for their ability to help the person through the process of euthanasia and the decision to cremate. One participant explained that the veterinarian “laid out” her dog, grooming him, covering him with a blanket, resting his head on a pillow, and playing soft music in a room where she could spend time alone with him before he was sent for cremation: “I’m so grateful to them for doing that . . . he looked lovely and at peace, and it meant such a lot to me” (Participant 3). Discussion In this study we asked three providers of cremation services for companion animals in one state in Australia to discuss the kinds of people who seek their assistance. Their accounts yield data on the general types of people who cremate their animals, their motivations for doing so, and the role the cremation and the service provider play in facilitating the grieving process for the bereaved. We triangulated the service providers’ data with data collected from interviews with seven people who had recently cremated their companion animal. Five interrelated themes emerged from the data that answer the research question regarding who might cremate their companion animal: “Everyone 256 A. Chur-Hansen et al. / Society & Animals 19 (2011) 248-260 uses companion animal cremation services”; “People who consider the companion animal as a family member, as a child”; “People who want memorials for their companion animals”; “Grieving people”; and “People who seek compassion and social support.” That people wanting a cremation do not fit one particular category is important. Podrazik et al. (2000), in a call for further research into the parallels between companion animal loss and human loss, argue that previous research in the area has tended to focus on children and the elderly. This study reinforces their suggestion that researchers should consider grief and loss in relation to companion animals across the human lifespan. Similarly, Morley and Fook (2005) stress the importance of acknowledging that the humananimal bond has value to a wide range of people across all age groups. Thus, grief at the death of a loved companion animal with whom a valued relationship has been shared should not be pathologized or marginalized by health care professionals and other service providers. This can be the case if it is seen to be the product of childhood (and thus childish) or an issue that concerns only the stereotypical lonely old person with no social supports save the cat. The matter of grief after the death of a companion animal, Morley and Fook state, is a significant social issue for mainstream society. Memorials are a culturally important part of grieving and mourning rituals and comprise an aspect of symbolic acts (Podrazik et al., 2000). If people view their companion animal as their child, or a member of their family, it seems reasonable that they would want their family member treated with dignity and respect in death. The participants in this study all discussed the importance for the grieving process of the cremation, the ashes and the vessel in which they were stored, and the place where the ashes were kept. Memorials for companion animals are believed to provide comfort and facilitate closure for the bereaved, serving the same function that they have for humans (Clements, Benasutti, & Carmone, 2003). Of interest was the fact that none of the providers offered a funeral service, an important transformation ritual involving rites of separation that helps the mourner move from one social status to another (Podrazik et al., 2000; Hendry, 1999). That funeral services were not offered provides a notable regional contrast between the United States, Europe, and Australia. Morales (1997), writing from the United States, indicates that there, unlike in Australia, animals can be buried with full religious ceremony and can even be buried with their caretakers. Howell (2002), writing from the United Kingdom, also underscores cultural differences, observing that “Pet cemeteries continue to proliferate in Europe and North America, [and] pet funerals provide both elaborate ritual and profitable business” (p. 20). In contrast, Brown (2006), writing from New A. Chur-Hansen et al. / Society & Animals 19 (2011) 248-260 257 South Wales, in Australia, discusses the dearth of literature in Australia and elsewhere on ways in which theologians of all faiths can offer pastoral counseling and grief counseling and provide a funeral service for
Report abuse