Georgian parliament recently deliberated on a proposal for a new law concerning the prospect of creating cremation services in our Christian orthodox country. Speaking more specifically, the proposal is to introduce an addition to the existing law on permits and licenses in the following wording: ‘Issuing of a license for interring human remains and the activity thereof.’
The bill has a very emotional background. It was put forward by Khatuna Samnidze, one of the leading oppositional deputies, whose mother is said to have asked the family members before she passed away after a long, irremediable disease, to cremate her remains and scatter them into the Black Sea in Batumi. The first part of the lady’s will was honorably fulfilled by her loving children, and the second was substituted by interring the ashes in their late father’s burial place. One can hardly find a reason, more upright, sensitive and humanely justifiable, for building a legislative document and putting it before one’s fellow parliamentarians for consideration. Another thing is whether the bill has a chance to be signed into a law or not. Let’s take a brief look at the issue.
There is a strong, almost insurmountable predisposition in Sakartvelo that burning a deceased’s body is not a good idea, and the only acceptable way to discard a corpse is to bury it. And yet, the traditional entombment of mortals in Georgia demands the usage of vast swathes of countryside, a crazy amount of building material and workforce, as well as the totally incongruent volume of time, money and energy of those still alive who are obligated to take care of their dead.
There is no mention of a prohibition on cremation in the biblical text. Nor do the local ecclesiastical standards or principles contradict the concept, although the Church is more in favor of internment than cremation, as it has always been so in this culture. Nobody is saying to step totally away from traditional ways of saying farewell to our loved ones: The proposed bill merely seeks to give our people a choice. Choice happens to be a big deal in any modern-day human activity. Choice is one of the greatest privileges we look for when saying that we want to be a part of the western family of nations. Choice in general is what the ideological infrastructure of the 21st century suggests needs to be held up. So, why should it not be an option for all of us to choose what we want done with our body after our soul has left it? Especially seeing that when a person is gone, we should be praying for their soul not their body.
Interestingly, the mentioned bill did not fail, but has been shelved for the time being, as the majority (about 60%) of Georgia’s population, when asked about their preference in this regard, gave a categorically negative response.
And still, the way the world is developing, plus the power of natural law, will in the near future have us adopt a new, more rational way of life, including the methodology of treating our deceased. Incidentally, in old Soviet times, there were thoughts and suggestions to allow cremation by law and the relevant facility was built in Mukhatgverdi cemetery, just outside Mtskheta, in the 1970s. It never got switched on, though, and is currently used as a warehouse.
Technically, the proposal in parliament intends to regulate the issue of cremation in the country, and, if necessary, to allow the business world to come up with certain relevant initiatives. As it stands, those families who wish to cremate their deceased relatives usually incur solid expenses, because the body has to be transferred to crematoriums in either Russia or Ukraine. The amount fluctuates between 6000 and 10,000 GEL.
Those who suggest our Christian orthodoxy is an obstacle in the way to this rational method of dealing with our dead should know that Greece is no less Orthodox than we are, and yet they have crematoriums there. If Georgia cannot get the convenience overnight because the possibility is not yet around the corner, we should at least have hope that the mentioned legal proposal is being kept in mind for inevitable future deliberation and subsequent adoption.
Op-Ed by Nugzar B. Ruhadze
