Who Owns Your Body?

What is your answer if someone were to ask you a question: "Who owns your Body?". We may laugh or frown at the person asking this question. The word "Frown" incidentally means "To contract the (eye) brow, as in displeasure or in deep thought". It also means to look displeased or have an angry look or view with disapproval. It appears that this word is created for answering such questions! What nonsensical question is this, one may wonder. Someone may as well shout: "Of course, I own my body!". But is it really true? What are the answers from different angles such as physical, emotional, legal, logical and spiritual view points? 

Ownership is defined in the dictionary as "The act, state or right of possessing something". It relates to a bundle of rights about use and control over an asset. Is the body an asset or liability? A body that was considered as one's most valuable asset at a young age may itself become a big liability at old age. Efforts at growing the asset at youth turns into a preservation exercise of the liability in later years of one's life. As a child, one is not aware of even the concept of ownership. The realisation of use and control develops as one grows up, until this very realisation is lost due to vagaries of time.

There are many dimensions to answers of this question. The answer may depend on many conditions and situations. Answer may depend on who is asking the question to whom, where and when. The answer for the same body may differ depending on the time when the question is asked. The body of a baby belongs to the mother (or the guardian) as the baby does not yet realise that it has a body and has control over it. In the case of an adult, the assumption is that the person owns his body. In the instance of a slave (though slavery is not legally accepted now, it was in force from time to time in the history of mankind), perhaps the master owns it. 

The answers change drastically when a person loses control over his body either temporarily or permanently. In the case of a bedridden person who does not even be aware of own existence, it is probably the caretaker who owns it. A patient's body lying under anaesthesia on the operation table could be said to belong to the Surgeon operating on it, as the surgeon can do anything he wants with the body subject to reasonable restrictions. The body of a prisoner is in the custody of the jailor as the prisoner is restricted from its usage. As regards the body of a dead person, who owns it? The one who apparently owned the body till death is not present now to claim the body and control over it. Does anyone own it or is it only for the purpose of exercising rights over disposal of the body by cremation or burial? All these are indeed interesting questions that deserve some discussion.

*****

An interesting case about ownership of the body after death came up before the England and Wales High Court recently (2016) in the case of Anstey V Mundle & Anor. George Henry Carty was born in Jamaica in 1935 and came to England in 1960 to work as a transport engineer. He died on 10th January 2016 in England. Three daughters and a niece claimed rights over the body. Two daughters wanted the body to be buried in England whereas the third daughter and niece wanted it to be taken to Jamaica for burial. The family dispute became a case and came up before Mr Justice Klein. The judgement is a beautiful piece of discussion on the issues of rights over a dead body, process of grieving and disposal of the body. The judgement about rights of disposal over the dead body of George Henry Carty deals with the rights and duties of the personal representatives for disposal of the dead body.

As the dispute between two daughters on one side and the third daughter and niece on the other stretched, George Henry Carty was not laid to rest for 6 weeks. As the judge said, instead of ending the normal process of grieving, it brought further grief and misery in itself to the family. The judge observed that the reasons for dispute were indeed genuine. The daughters who wanted the burial to happen in England wanted it so as Carty never visited Jamaica again after his arrival in England. The other daughter and niece were insistent on the burial in Jamaica as Carty was reported to have expressed a desire to be buried by the side of his mother in Jamaica. After considering the deposition of all witnesses and material available on record, the Judge considered the following aspects before pronouncing his judgement:

• Deceased's wishes.
• Reasonable requirements and wishes of the family who are left behind to grieve.
• Location with which the deceased was most closely connected.
• Disposal of the body with all proper respect and decency, and if possible without delay.

The Judge observed that while a person may be close to his children, that is not always the case. The Judge finally relied on the deposition of a third party, a friend of the deceased who did not have too much closeness with the deceased, and ordered that the burial take place in Jamaica without further delay. He hoped that all the parties concerned will cooperate towards this end and ensure action immediately as the matter was already delayed a lot. He also clarified that his judgement is limited to the disposal of the body only and does not have a bearing on all other issues like rights over the estate of the deceased and validity of a subsisting will made by the deceased etc. The judgement is a beautiful example of a speaking order listing out all details of the case and reasons for the final conclusion. A speaking order is an order that speaks for itself and stands the test of legality, fairness and reasoning. The judgement referred above can be a good guide to decide issues relating to disposing a body in disputed cases with due respect to the deceased person. 

*****

The case of George Henry Carty reminds us of umpteen instances in our own experience where the disposal of a dead body posed problems. Some of them are:

• Waiting or not waiting for some relative to arrive before disposal of the body.
• Using the dead body as a bargaining chip until demands are met by some authority. 
• Disputes about cremation where the custom of the family is disposal through burial or cremation or vice versa. 
• Conflict about a decision to take a body to the house of a relative from the hospital or place where death occurred is opposed by another are common. There are examples where due to such dispute the body has been moved directly to the burial ground to solve claims and counter claims.
• Who should perform the last rites. Sometimes there are more than one willing to do so while in some cases nobody wants this duty or responsibility.
• Bearing or sharing expenses for the last rites. A most wanted person's body becomes most unwanted during such times.
• Either treating the ceremony as a painful duty or glorifying it to monumental proportions.
• Nature of ceremonies to be performed. Should it be brief or long or should there be no ceremony at all?

When all these are considered, the inescapable conclusion is that problems of life do not end in death. Lucky are those whose bodies are disposed with dignity and without delay and disputes!

*****

Who owns the human body as per our ancient scriptures? This is an interesting question as well. This question also has many answers, but the most accepted one appears to state that there are five persons who can lay a claim to a human body at different stages. The belief is that after death at the end of previous cycle, the soul travels and floats in space. It then falls on the ground along with a drop of rain and reaches a grain or animal in due course. When a man eats the grain or the animal, the soul enters the father's body. 

1. The soul lives in the father's body for three months, takes the shape of a sperm before entering the mother's body. First claimant is the Father. The importance of father in one's life stems from this.
2. The soul enters the mother's body through the sperm and the person's body takes shape and develops there. For this reason, an inseparable bond develops between the mother and the child. The second claimant is the Mother.  
3. The third claimant is the one responsible for providing food and shelter to the individual. His role is equally important as that of father or mother since he provides the support for sustaining the body. The third claimant is this Master (Swami).
4. The body after death belongs to the fire when it is cremated. For the sacred fire that burns the dead body, it is a piece of dry cocoanut (Kobbari Gitaku in Kannada). Hence the fourth claimant is Agni (Fire). In case of burial, it can be construed as Mother Earth.
5. In case of non-cremation or non-burial for any reason, the body belongs to the dogs and other animals (Naayi-Nari in Kannada). Animals eat such a body like a bread piece. Animals are the fifth claimant, in case the fourth claim is not honoured.

A decent burial or cremation is the desired end to any human being after the life's journey comes to an end. It is an equitable right of the dead and the sacred duty of the living left behind. It should be done with respect and dignity.

*****

This post has become rather lengthy. But these are indeed the various issues that come up when such topics are dealt with. This is also the precise advantage of a blog post. A similar article sent for publication to a newspaper or magazine would be trimmed to desired size measured in number of words. This exercise of trimming would take out the soul of the piece leaving a fractured body behind. 

Viewed from another angle, as the subject matter is one of life and death, and at the end of a long life, the post is not that long, after-all!