I beg to differ. If the point being made by the APA is that siblings might benefit from an encounter with death, then I'm on board.* But taking your dead loved one on a trip, outside of a proper funerary context, still strikes me as macabre. I just celebrated my mother's gi-il, and I find it hard even to imagine doing something like this with Mom's body. As I type this, the thought fills me with disgust and horror.
Call me old-school. The dead deserve to be treated with respect, which means, in part, shifting their mortal remains around as little as possible. (The Jews have it right on this score.) What would have been so wrong with having Gabriel's siblings brought to the hospital? That scenario is much more common. Extramural show-and-tell, by contrast, is not.
So I'm going to be the lone voice of dissent, here. I still believe that the Santorums' actions were creepy and just plain wrong. I'll grant that people may do strange things in moments of extremity; I certainly don't want to jeer at Gabriel's death, despite my long-standing visceral dislike of his father. But the doing of strange things is still a choice, and my feeling is that the Santorums could have handled this tragedy very differently.
So even though Mark Steyn refuses to answer the question,** I find it worth asking: would you bundle your recently-deceased loved one up-- a baby, a parent, a sibling, an uncle or aunt or grandparent-- and drive him or her across town for the benefit of survivors who weren't there when the loved one passed away? I know for a fact that I wouldn't.
UPDATE: For what it's worth, Santorum's actions-- taking the dead baby home-- are not recommended by current experts. I mention this out of a sense of fairness: if people are going to quote outdated chapter and verse from the American Pregnancy Association, then it's only proper to counterbalance that information with more current information:
But some mental health experts believe the Santorums may have been ahead of their time by ritualizing their son's death in order to exorcize their grief, though they say taking a body home is unusual and not recommended.
In the context of the times -- the year was 1996 when the family buried Gabriel -- their behavior was understandable, according to Dr. David Diamond, a psychologist and co-author of the 2005 book "Unsung Lullabies."
Helen Coons, a clinical psychologist and president of Women's Mental Health Associates in Philadelphia, said couples are not encouraged to bring a deceased fetus home.
*Jessica Heslam very touchingly makes a similar point in her recent article about Santorum's and her own family's tragedy in "Our Bereavement is Our Own." She's more forgiving of Santorum's strangeness than I am, but I can't help noticing that she seems not to have done what the Santorums did.
**Steyn's piece takes advantage of Gabriel's death to make what is essentially a political point. From the article's title onward, Steyn's rant is less about a dead child than it is about perceived leftist hypocrisy. Sorry, Gabriel-- you're still somebody's football, mainly because we live in an age of manufactured, choreographed outrage.
_
To me, this is what's wrong with politics. If Santorum believes sharing Gabriel's death with his family was the right thing for his family, that's his business. I'm more interested in what he has done in his political career and his stand on issues of importance to our nation. Last I checked, he is not running for mortician-in-chief.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a lot in Santorum's political beliefs that is worthy of criticism. He wants Why aren't we talking about that?
Unfortunately for Santorum, his wife wrote a book and made Gabriel the public's business.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Santorum's political beliefs: he's too hawkish for my taste, and I don't consider myself a dove; he's also an unabashed theocrat and strongly against gay rights. I worry about whether he'd use the Oval Office as a platform for spreading his personal agenda. I don't look at him and see a proper federalist. While I never seriously viewed Dubya as a "theocon" the way some wild-eyed liberals did, I worry about ol' Rick.
Santorum on the issues:
1. no abortion, even for rape
2. no gay marriage
3. cut corporate tax to... zero??
4. promote "legitimate" debate about creationism vs. evolutionism
5. Church-state "neutrality" is not in US Constitution. (Apr 2006)
etc., etc.
Kevin, it's precisely your own reluctance to jeer at the Santorums for their manner of mourning that gives the game away. As odd as you may think it is -- and I do too -- you understand that it's just not cricket, somehow, for anyone with a civilized sense of decency, to mock a family's grief. Not so Colmes and Robinson.
ReplyDeleteOh, no, I'm fine with calling the Santorums bizarre and creepy for what they did. I simply don't jeer at the fact that Gabriel died. No matter how twisted and odious Rick Santorum might be, there's no way I could say that Gabriel's death was something he and his family deserved. No parent deserves the pain of losing a child. But if the Santorums want to go public about how they handled Gabriel's death, they should expect all manner of critique, from polite to boorish.
ReplyDeleteNone of which is to say that Colmes had a right to mischaracterize what the Santorums did as bringing the dead baby home for the siblings to play with. If you're going to call someone creepy, go with the actual evidence at hand. No need to make stuff up, especially in this case.
I'm reminded of National Lampoon's "Vacation"-- the first in the series, in which ol' Aunt Edna dies and ends up being toted partway across the country. I've got nothing but sympathy for Edna, but the Griswold family was certainly fucked in the head.
Yes, as you listed above there are many reasons not to like Santorum as a candidate for the presidency. But disagreeing with how he handled this most personal family tragedy should not be one of them. The fact that his wife discussed it in a book should not make Gabriel's death fodder for a political attack.
ReplyDeleteI think elements of Romney's LDS faith are just as "weird" as what happened with Gabriel. But I'll be voting for him in the South Carolina primary anyway.