Letter: Option for disposing of human remains has merit

"Ashes to ashes and dust to dust." Isn't this the desired burial outcome? I do not understand the Catholic Church's objection to Rep. Kelly Cassidy's proposal to allow natural organic reduction as a death care choice.

My wife passed away very recently. As her passing came closer, I researched all the non-burial options because my wife was against wasting much needed land and resources to hold her body until, hundreds of years hence, it would fully decay. In my research, I came across so-called "human composting" (a terrible moniker) and learned that it would be the most environmentally friendly method for disposing of her remains. Sadly, it was not available in Illinois so we settled on cremation.

Cremation is a process that uses considerable energy to heat the remains to 900 degrees. The remaining bones are crushed and added to the ashes of the flesh. The organic approach felt more respectful to me.

Catholics, and Jews for that matter, are opposed to cremation, even though over 50% of corpses are cremated in the U.S. I understand their position because of the cremation process. But cremated remains do not take up space, can help fertilize a tree, or can be incorporated into other environmentally friendly conditions.

Long-term, it still appears a better alternative to burial. Worse, the frequent, often required use of cement sarcophaguses for burials only provides extra income for the funeral industry.

This does not mean I oppose others using traditional burials, though I would like to see the sarcophagus banned. Catholics and Christians have their beliefs and traditions, Jews theirs, Hindi theirs, Buddhists theirs, and atheists theirs. Ultimately, this is a First Amendment issue. Accordingly, I salute Rep. Cassidy and support her legislation.

Mark Michaels

Arlington Heights