Embedded Files
bereaved caretakers of companion animals. He attributes this to an underestimation of need by religious leaders, with a consequent absence of religious liturgies for companion animal funeral services, a point reiterated by Westerfield Tucker (2007). Gage and Holcomb (1991) note that rituals for the death of a companion animal have not been conventionalized and that service providers therefore need to help grieving caretakers formulate rituals that have meaning to them. It would seem that attending the cremation services offered by the providers in this study would be one way of achieving this. The companion animal caretakers in this study did not attend such services but instead formulated their own rites and rituals. That people attending the cremation service were experiencing grief is not a surprising finding. The expression of grief after the death of a companion animal has been identified as a significant factor in promoting coping and functional status (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2006). However, the extent of the grief and the service providers’ recognition that some clients needed greater assistance than they could offer is of concern, as it is not clear that people did receive any further support. People experiencing multiple losses, or reminded of earlier losses, with the animal’s death constituting “symbolic loss” (Lagoni, Butler, & Hetts, 1994a), as identified by one provider, have been considered in the literature as particularly distressed (Margolies, 1999). Of concern too is the fact that the providers are dealing with people in great psychological distress without having had any training in how to manage this distress. The emotional burden placed upon them, of constantly dealing with distraught people and death, was apparent in their accounts. The finding that people sought compassion and social support from the cremation service providers indicates that these providers serve a useful function, although, as we have already discussed, it is noteworthy that they provide this function without training. It may also indicate, though, that people are not receiving that compassion or social support from other, perhaps more appropriate, sources. Quackenbush (1984) has observed that there are no socially sanctioned cultural mechanisms in Western society for people to express grief over the death of a loved companion animal. Wrobel and Dye (2003) also point out that, even though the grief reaction one experiences upon the death of a companion animal is similar to that felt after the death of a significant human other, the mourning processes sanctioned by society are not the same. Without appropriate, socially sanctioned rituals, people must find their own ways of dealing with their grief. 258 A. Chur-Hansen et al. / Society & Animals 19 (2011) 248-260 Where there are restrictions placed upon the expression of grief, such as those resulting from the social denial that the human-animal bond is a significant relationship, the need for an expression of grief may in fact be intensified, causing the individual stress and further psychological suffering (Stewart, Thrush, & Paulus, 1989). Stewart et al. (1989) use the term “disenfranchised bereavement” to describe the result of the discouragement of grief and mourning rituals by the absence of social recognition and legitimation of the loss (p. 148). There is a role, therefore, for the veterinarian in acknowledging the need for rites and rituals and in providing information about how and where these can be accessed. Toray (2004) suggests that cards, flowers, and lighted candles in the veterinary clinic can assist those dealing with the loss of their loved animal. Lagoni, Butler, and Hetts (1994b) consider in detail how veterinarians might acknowledge the loss and grief a person is experiencing, how to approach the return of companion animal remains, the role of the clergy and religious leaders, and the importance of memorials and funerals. The family doctor, the psychologist, and the social worker can play important roles in counseling the bereaved (Donohue, 2005) and in giving them permission to engage in rituals (Sharkin & Knox, 2003). There is very little concrete information available, however, about what these rituals might constitute or how the therapist can assist, nor are there any evaluative studies to demonstrate their efficacy. These are areas that need to be addressed. The present research has described some of the rituals in which bereaved caretakers engage; the systematic study of a larger sample and how these rituals assisted the grieving process would be valuable in future research. There are several limitations to this research. The providers perceived that “everyone” uses their services, and while they could not define a specific category of person most likely to employ their services, it is not the case that cremation of companion animals is requested universally in Australia. People regularly bury their companion animals in the garden, flush their goldfish down the toilet, and dispose of dead animals in the rubbish. Although this study tells us something about the people who seek cremation of their companion animals, it does not allow prediction of who will and who will not want this service. It is possible that the theory of attachment may be instructive here (Field, Orsini, Gavish, & Packman, 2009; Podrazik et al., 2000). In future research, standardized
Report abuse