Unprecedented Occurrences & Unexpected Replies | 4M #236

Welcome to the two-hundred-and-thirty-sixth edition of Morticians’ Monday Morning Mashup, 4M #236, where we’ll serve up bite-sized, easily-digestible nuggets of the deathcare news you need to crush conversations in the week ahead. Bon appetit!

He’s so punny

Colorado’s recent shifts to better regulate the deathcare profession shouldn’t come as a surprise to Connecting Directors readers, especially in light of the state’s recent scandals. Most funeral workers are also welcoming House proposal, HB 26-1248, which fixes some of the issues in the newer laws that might make it more difficult to attract people to the profession. After receiving comments from viewers about the bill, Denver7 news invited one of the bill’s cosponsors to address those concerns. It’s a good read, but we’re especially fond of Rep. Matt Sofer’s puns, including this one: “It didn’t really make sense to industry, because there’s not people dying to go into the funeral industry.”

Secure Online Identity Verification

When a family can’t come to your funeral home in person, online identification is sometimes the only option, — but emailing photos isn’t secure (and it’s repeat-viewable).

Secure View gives you a safer, documented way to confirm identity online:

Upload the photo securely
Send a password-protected link for a limited-time view
The next of kin verifies themselves by uploading a government-issued ID
You receive confirmation documentation for your records

If you want to see how it works (and how it helps safeguard your funeral home), watch the quick demo.

See Secure View Demo

He is Risen!

A Birmingham, Alabama funeral home’s well-timed Easter Monday Facebook post has gone viral, sparking hundreds of comments, a few AI-generated memes, and a whole lot of good-natured attention:

As the deathcare docket turns …

We scour the news reports each week to bring you the very latest in deathcare — the good, the bad, and the ugly. But each week we truly hope that there will be none of the latter two. It’d be great to have a 4M with no deathcare docket report, yet, as we say, here we are …

“Ideal”?

A UK woman was recently informed by the owners of a Canada cemetery that her father, who died in 1973, was actually not interred in an unmarked grave on the property, as she had previously assumed. Now she’s suing the company that took over ownership of the cemetery (well after the presumed burial) for damages, noting that the company’s offer of $10,000, a $1,000 charitable donation, and a memorial isn’t enough. “The ideal outcome is that they pay me for quite a bit more than they are offering for the pain and suffering for losing my father, for not giving my father the duty of care that he deserved,” she told CTV News. Now, I could be wrong, and it’s just my opinion, but shouldn’t the “ideal outcome” be that someone figures out what actually happened to her dad’s body?