By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent lawsuit, two funeral homes are accused of a gruesome error: allegedly providing grieving parents with their deceased son’s brain in an unmarked box. The box, shipped between funeral homes and left in the family’s car, began to leak and emit a foul odor, with the father inadvertently handling the brain matter. The Butlers’ attorney asserts that both funeral homes were negligent in their handling of the remains and caused severe emotional distress. The Butlers seek answers and compensation, hoping the lawsuit will prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future, as they still do not know if the brain was buried with the rest of his remains.
Read the original article here
The core of this story is truly horrifying – a family’s unimaginable trauma compounded by the gross negligence, and potentially illegal actions, of a funeral home. The very premise – that a son’s brain was sent in an unmarked, leaking box – is enough to make anyone’s stomach churn. It’s a scenario ripped straight from a nightmare, the stuff of horror movies, not the aftermath of laying a loved one to rest. The depth of the family’s suffering is almost impossible to fathom.
Considering the information provided, it’s hard to avoid the chilling possibility of something far more sinister than mere incompetence. The idea that the funeral home may have been involved in the illegal trafficking of body parts immediately springs to mind. Several commenters immediately raised the possibility of organ harvesting, a disturbing yet plausible explanation for the brain’s removal and mishandling. The fact that the box was unmarked and leaking adds an extra layer of disgust and suspicion. As one person put it, the situation feels like “something from a horror movie.”
Adding to the pain, the details of the situation are a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities families face during such difficult times. The fact that the family didn’t know about the brain’s removal until after burial is incredibly disturbing. They were denied the dignity of knowing what was happening with their son’s remains, and that’s something that will undoubtedly haunt them. The subsequent need for a second burial, further deepening their grief, is heartbreaking.
The potential involvement of multiple parties, like the medical examiner’s office, the first funeral home, and the second funeral home adds complexity to the matter. There’s a clear sense that a critical chain of procedures was utterly disregarded. One commenter’s experience in Lawrence, MA, with a funeral home facing license issues and unkempt remains, underscores the importance of regulations and oversight. The implication that the building changed names but remained essentially the same hints at a disturbing trend of potentially unethical practices continuing under the radar.
The suggestion that the brain was removed for testing due to a suspected case of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) offers a potential medical explanation. CJD is a rare and fatal degenerative brain disorder, and certain protocols may require the removal and examination of brain tissue. While this could explain the removal, it doesn’t excuse the complete lack of care in transporting and handling the remains. Even if this was the case, a labeled, sealed container would be the absolute minimum standard of care.
The “Abby Normal” reference, a nod to the film *Young Frankenstein*, highlights the sheer absurdity and grotesqueness of the situation. It’s a morbid humor that underscores the surreal nature of the events. The idea of a detached brain being shipped around haphazardly is, to put it mildly, utterly appalling.
The apparent indifference of the funeral homes involved is another major factor of concern. The response from the Georgia funeral home, according to reports, that “it was Garlington’s brain and a mistake had been made” is a shocking understatement. This sort of response shows a startling lack of empathy and accountability. Such a casual attitude toward such a sensitive matter adds more fuel to the fire of suspicion, reinforcing the idea of potential wrongdoing.
The fact that the parents had the nightmare of having their son’s brain in their possession for days, even getting rid of the car to be rid of the trauma, is a deeply upsetting detail. It speaks to the lasting and profound impact of such an experience. The idea of having to get rid of a car due to the lingering presence of their son’s remains is horrific.
The call for increased oversight of the funeral home industry is perfectly reasonable. As one commenter states, this situation exposes the need for stronger regulations and more rigorous enforcement. The lack of adequate oversight, coupled with the potential for financial gain through illegal practices, creates a breeding ground for these types of situations.
In summary, this is a heartbreaking account of a family’s immense suffering compounded by a chain of failures and potentially criminal actions. It raises fundamental questions about the ethics of the funeral home industry and the importance of respecting the dignity of the deceased and the grief of the bereaved. The family deserves not only justice but also answers as to why their son’s remains were treated with such utter disrespect. And hopefully, this tragic case will serve as a catalyst for much-needed reform within the mortuary industry.