South Carolina stiffens "funeral rules" (2024)

What can only be described as “lax” and “unprofesional” conduct around the world in the funeral profession during the last several years is starting to get attention by governing bodies. There has been pretty high profile “unethical conduct” cases in Colorado and Great Britain, among other locales, which is now leading government authorities almost everywhere to take a hard look at their rules and laws of conduct in the profession.

We recently learned that South Carolina House Bill 4116 was signed into law on July 3. You can access the summary of the rule changes by going to this website. Here’s a short summary of what the South Carolina Board of Funeral Service says happened with this law:

“. . . several areas of the law with respect to the death care industry in South Carolina have been changed. More specifically, changes have been made to the laws governing the practice of funeral service, the laws governing cremation, and the laws governing preneed funeral contracts. . . “

Here’s a checklist of some of the items that were included in the “Funeral Practices Act”, the “Safe Cremation Act”, or the “Consumer Affairs Preneed Funeral Contract” portions of the bill:

• Alkaline hydrolysis was authorized

• On-site caskets are no longer required in funeral homes.

• Increased penalties for unlicensed practice were implemented

• Continuing Education was both increased in hours needed and an exemption for those over 60 years of age with 30 years of experience was added

• The distance a manager can live from a funeral home was increased.

• Mandatory registration of crematory operators was approved

• Penalties for those who willfully violate the laws governing preneed funeral contracts have increased

Funeral Director Daily take: I’m certainly an advocate of consumer protection. But, it has to be done in a way that does not put unburdened regulation on the business or raise the cost of the services provided to the consumer.. . . In essence, it has to be done in a fair and balanced fashion.

However, I’ll also say that while there are thousands and thousands of great funeral homes and great funeral directors serving the public, it only takes a couple of “bad apples” to spoil and tarnish the reputation of all of these good funeral directors. And, from my point of view there has been plenty of those “bad apple” funeral directors lately to give consumers pause on funeral directors and their ethics.

I think the South Carolina regulations are not overly burdensome and allowing alkaline hydrolysis gives consumers yet another choice of final disposition. I’m guessing that alkaline hydrolysis and natural organic reduction are on a path to almost universal legality in the United States as additional forms of final disposition. . . and, I don’t find anything wrong with that as it gives consumers more choices.

Of course, it will give existing funeral homes a dilemma. . . that is how will they present their offerings to consumers in those optional categories?

I found two of the new regulations in South Carolina interesting:

On-site Caskets no longer required — One might ask why South Carolina funeral homes were ever required to display a “stock of at least 6 adult caskets” in the first place. My first thought is that it was to stop regional funeral homes from putting small funeral homes in small communities with little investment to compete with the existing funeral homes. It would seem to me that was a “self-preservation” or moat method of holding on to market share and not in the spirit of letting consumers make the decisions with their choices of what they want. . . . . So, no longer requiring caskets is probably simply catching up to reality.

Distance from a Manager’s Residence to the Funeral Establishment — House Bill 4116 moved this distance from 25 miles to 75 miles. . . . My question is “Why have this rule at all?” If a funeral home cannot be serviced, clientele will use another funeral home. Again, it was probably a “self-preservation” or moat method of keeping regional operators out of a funeral home’s sphere of dominance. 75 miles probably makes this rule a moot point, but why have it at all?

Related Article — As was mentioned above, there has been some ethical challenges among funeral homes in Great Britain in the last few years also. Here’s a recent article calling for regulation in Great Britain.

Related Article— After a large preneed funeral company (Safe Hands) failed in Great Britain a couple of years ago, the country’s Financial Conduct Authority took preneed businesses and regulated them. Here is an article from the National Association of Funeral Directors (Great Britain) on that subject.

More news from the world of Death Care:

• India’s Charaideo Moidam burial mounds designated World Heritage site. VOA – Voice of America
• I know how I want to be celebrated after I die: Not with a funeral, but with a party. The Modesto Bee (CA)
• Township council gets the dirt on proposed cremation pilot for cemetery. Bradford Today – Ontario (Canada)
• Area funeral home expands on-site cremations facilities. Telegraph Herald (IA)

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,058 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”