Body or no body

[janedoep]

I was just wondering, does anyone know whether the psychological implications for family left behind would be worse with no body for burial than with a destroyed body not fit for viewing? From the little I know about death from accidents, when police find a body mutilated, the coroner usually leaves it up to the family whether they want to view it or not. But I've read about a lot of people not getting closure with a death of a loved one because there was no body to view or bury. So given the choice between leaving the country to commit suicide where a body won't be found/identified vs. a gory gunshot death in a field close to home, which would have the least negative effect in terms of grieving and moving on?

 

[alexithymia]

I think it entirely depends on the family. I feel like no body is better than seeing a horrifically mutilated one, however.

 

[Zal]

People react differently to the same circumstances. It is completely dependent on the family.
Some people are able to handle seeing a dead body, some people are unable to do the same. Unless there is a precedent, it is hard to say how exactly a family will react to their loved ones death, or rather which one is worse.

Personally, I believe that it is better for there to be a body, then given the choice to see the body if they wish to do so. Because at the very least, you would have proof that there is someone dead. Instead of believing that they might be alive and only missing.

 

[Rachel74]

I think a body there is closure for the family x

 

[SlackJim]

I'm leaning towards worse with no body, I would try to leave an intact body if I chose to die

 

[LonelyLight]

No body at all would be worse. At least with a body they will have the chance to bury you and come to some kind of terms with it even if it is closed coffin