Текст книги "The American Way of Death Revisited"

16. A GLOBAL VILLAGE OF THE DEAD

Of all the changes in the funeral scene over the last decades, easily the most significant is the emergence of monopolies in what the trade is pleased to call the “death care” industry. Leaders in the drive to upgrade and up-price funerals, the principal beneficiaries of the Federal Trade Commission’s ignoble retreat, are the multinational corporations that have put their imprint on every facet of the business. Of the three publicly traded major players—Service Corporation International (SCI), the Loewen Group, and Stewart Enterprises—SCI, incorporated in 1984, is the undisputed giant.

To trace its brilliant trajectory, a good starting point is its 1995 annual report to stockholders, which vibrates with pride of accomplishments: “SCI experienced the most dynamic year in its history in 1994, reaching new milestones in revenue and net incomes while establishing a solid presence in the European funeral industry.” Revenues exceeded the $1 billion mark for the first time. Its crowning achievement was the takeover of some 15 percent of British funeral establishments added to its existing 9 percent in the U.S. and 25 percent in Australia.

Ever on the prowl, by mid-1995 SCI had devoured yet another large U.S. holding, Gibraltar Mausoleum Corporation, with its 23 funeral homes and 54 cemeteries, and had obtained a foothold in Europe with the acquisition of France’s largest funeral chain, Lyonnaise des Eaux, comprising 950 funeral homes in France and others in Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and Singapore.

SCI’s annual revenue for 1995 exceeded $1.5 billion. By 1996 its prearranged funeral revenue surpassed $2.3 billion and its prepaid cemetery sales accounted for an additional $251 million.

Given these outstanding accomplishments, much now depends on the level of performance of the Grim Reaper. Can he be counted on to do the job? Mortuary Managementwas gloomy on this score, noting that due to medical advances in the treatment of cancer and heart disease, the death rate was bound to decline.

Not so the brokerage houses and investment analysts, who are showing much interest in the new “consolidations,” as they are called. The Goldman, Sachs brokerage house, analyzing their prospects, predicts a rosy future:

Aggregate deaths have increased at roughly 1.1 percent on a compound basis since 1940…. Going forward, the continued aging of the baby-boomers, coupled with an increasing proportion of people over age 65, should keep aggregate deaths rising…. The aging of America should enable the death care industry to experience extremely stable demand in the future.

The Chicago Corporation is equally sanguine. “The addition of well-chosen death care stocks to an investment portfolio can increase the value of that portfolio nicely.” One advantage cited: “Consumers rarely comparison shop due to the infrequency of purchase, which averages once in every 14 years. In many instances, a deceased’s survivors will trade up for more expensive options than what may have already been prearranged.” There is also a word of caution:

Cremation, which is becoming an increasingly popular option, is seen as the biggest risk to the industry. We agree that it is a risk, but do not believe that it is as great as perceived—and it may even yield some opportunities. Moreover, there are risks inherent in the aggressive strategies and tactics favored by industry participants. Industry pricing practices could be subject to greater scrutiny.

In February 1996 Merrill Lynch noted that

operating results were strong in the fourth quarter…. However, the year-over-year increase was below our 51% estimate. The shortfall is attributable to continued softness in the U.S. death rate.

J. P. Morgan in February 1996 carries an optimistic headline: SERVICE CORP. INTERNATIONAL: A STRONG 1995 AND POSITIONED FOR 1996. Here also the continued softness in the death rate is perceived as a bit of a problem:

Throughout 1995, the death rate in North America was lower than the historical trend. Case volume was down 3% year to year….

But there was a silver lining. As John Betjeman wrote in his poem “For Nineteenth Century Burials,” “This cold weather/Carries so many old people away.” The J. P. Morgan bulletin continues:

With extremely cold weather in North America during the first two months of 1996, the first quarter death rate should be closer to the historical trend of approximately 8.8 deaths per thousand. It is our understanding that where extreme weather conditions have been experienced in Europe and North America, volume did, in fact, increase during the first five weeks of 1996, and Europe appears well on its way to meeting or exceeding its plan for the first quarter.

The twin strategies that go far to account for SCI’s phenomenal success, both concepts entirely new to the funeral industry, are “clustering” and anonymity.

Of the twenty-two thousand funeral homes in the United States, the vast majority are small operations doing somewhere between fifty and one hundred funerals a year. Critics of the industry attribute high prices to this factor; they point out that the owner who performs one or two funerals a week must nevertheless maintain a full complement of embalmers, equipment, hearses, funeral cars, and sales personnel to serve these few customers. “It’s full-time pay for part-time work,” as one analyst put it.

SCI entered this picture with the force of a hurricane, swept away the antiquated methods of the old-timers, and substituted “clustering,” the latest in streamlined mass production. Borrowing from the successful techniques of McDonald’s, where food preparation and management functions are centralized, SCI first buys up a carefully chosen selection of funeral homes, cemeteries, flower shops, and crematoria in a given metropolitan area.

The next step is to move the essential elements of the trade to a central depot. “Clustered” in this hive of activity are the hearses, limousines, utility cars, drivers, dispatchers, embalmers, and a spectrum of office workers from accountants to data processors, who are kept constantly busy servicing, at vast savings, the needs of a half dozen or more erstwhile independent funeral homes. Needless to say, the savings obtained via the cluster approach are not passed on to the consumer. SCI prices have risen sharply, with a targeted increase of 30 percent. In markets like Houston, where SCI with its 20 funeral and cemetery businesses has a predominant position (75 percent of the market), its prices—according to a recent survey—average 60 percent higher than those of independents in the area; in Washington D.C., 40 percent higher. Prices of Loewen Group mortuaries tend to parallel those of SCI.

Although the consolidators own only about 10 percent of the nation’s funeral homes, these tend to be prime properties in key markets and account for 20 percent of the country’s funerals. The funeral customer is totally unaware of the strategy of clustering because of the immensely successful SCI policy of anonymity. In general, the plan is to acquire Johnson’s Chapel of Eternal Rest and keep not only the name but also Johnson himself, now installed as salaried manager, thus ensuring continuity of recognition and goodwill. When the occasion arises, you think of dear old Mr. J., honest old chap that your family had dealt with over the years, and so you go to Johnson’s, where Mr. J. greets you and leads you through the casket-selection room and signs you up for the funeral. Little do you know that the Dear Departed has been whisked off for embalming elsewhere, to reappear looking twenty years younger, nicely made up, and elegantly dressed in Johnson’s “slumber room,” where friends and family may gather to say their last farewells. Nor do you know that Johnson’s Chapel is now a highly predatory outfit where nothing’s the same—particularly the prices.

As a customer following Mr. Johnson into the casket-selection room, you may think you are being shown some randomly placed caskets, with nary a clue to the strategy carefully plotted by SCI, Johnson’s employers, as he leads you through your paces. An SCI directive to its Australian employees reads like a TV miniseries script, complete with stage directions:

As your arrangement comes to the casket selection stage, we would like you to use the following approach:

“Mr. and Mrs.______, I would now like to assist you in selecting a suitable coffin or casket for.”

ENTER SELECTION ROOM AND PROCEED TO STAND BEHIND THE CLASSIC ROYAL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM. GUIDE THE FAMILY TO STANDING IN FRONT OF THE CLASSIC.

“I would like to introduce you to our Classic Royal. This design is that of a European contemporary coffin. It is elegant [sic] finished in Rose Mahogany gloss with fine line gold engraving on the sides. This unit combines expert craftsmanship with a fully satin lined interior. It is priced at $1,595.”

NOW MOVE TO YOUR RIGHT AND STAND BEHIND THE CLASSIC REGAL.

“Here to the right, we have our most recent design and we call this the Classic Regal. It combines the shape of both a coffin and a casket to give us the very popular wider shape with a Rose Mahogany gloss finish. This item combines the versatility of Australian native timber and craftwood. It is priced at $1,995.”

MOVE TO THE WHITE PEARL ON THE STAND TO YOUR LEFT.

“This is our White Pearl…. It has been designed in the traditional coffin shape…. [T]he material from which it is made is craftwood. It is priced at $995.”

NOW PROCEED TO THE HANOVER IN YOUR RIGHT BACK CORNER AND STAND BESIDE IT.

There follows a glowing description of the Hanover, which is priced at $2,995. Doe or counterpart then tells the family:

“I will be just over here (move to near the top of the stairs) if you have any questions.”

The final stage direction:

ALLOW YOUR FAMILY AS MUCH TIME AS THEY NEED BUT ENSURE THAT YOU DO NOT LEAVE THEM IN THE ROOM. READ THEIR BODY LANGUAGE.

The casket prices quoted for Australia may be increased by a factor of three or more for their U.S. equivalent. Note, too, the use of the word “coffin,” a definite no-no in the lexicon of the American funeral trade. But Down Under, the word “casket” may mean—as elsewhere in the English speaking world except for the United States—an ornate box for jewels and other valuables. Australians are just now being indoctrinated by SCI into its undertaker-bestowed meaning of burial receptacles.

SCI has improved upon the somewhat primitive list of okay words (see chapter 5) in its recent manual for the use of its cemetery salespeople (emphasis as in the original text):

Terminology of SCI Cemeteries

A SPECIAL TERMINOLOGY has been developed at all SCI cemeteries in keeping with the memorial park plan. Just as well-designed tablets, flower gardens and statuary of genuine merit have taken the place of bleak and often garish tombstones, so words that are pleasing in their suggestion of BEAUTY AND DIGNITY are used in place of those that are HARSH and linked with depressing ideas.

CERTAIN WORDS AND PHRASES long associated with cemeteries sometimes increase sales resistance because they suggest images of a negative, morbid and depressing nature. The following is a list of POSITIVE-ACTION words and phrases in contrast to those that are negative. The latter should, as far as possible, be eliminated from all sales vocabulary.

Herewith a partial list of SCI’s deathless words:

Casket Coach	not	Hearse
Display Area	not	Casket Room
Interment Space	not	Grave
Opening Interment Space	not	Digging Grave
Closing Interment Space	not	Filling Up Grave

The gravedigger has a problem. He may not fill the grave with Dirt, he must fill it with Earth. His task will be preceded not by a Funeral, but by a Memorial Service. The decedent was not Sick, he was Ill. And he didn’t Die, he Passed On. His remains were not Embalmed, they were Prepared. There were no Mourners present for the Service, only Relatives and Friends.

Mortuaries acquired by the Loewen Group have their own method of boosting casket prices, known in-house as “Third Unit Target Merchandising.” It capitalizes on the propensity of the muddled survivors to avoid the cheapest caskets and choose the next one up in price. This means chucking a newly acquired mortuary’s usual lowest-priced offerings and replacing them with more expensive substitutes, so that when the customer picks that third-unit target he ends up choosing a casket that yields a much sweeter profit. A similar practice is in general use among consolidators; who refer to it simply as “remerchandising.”

The buccaneering tactics introduced by the consolidators have paid off in enviable profit margins. The Loewen Group in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reported a stunning gross profit margin of 41 percent from its funeral operations. SCI’s profit margin for funerals for the same period was a still robust 25.3 percent.

According to a survey by the nonprofit Memorial Society of North Texas, mortuaries owned by SCI, Loewen, and Stewart Enterprises, the three largest consolidators, were consistently more expensive than the independents in the area. A Loewen-owned mortuary in Amarillo, Texas, charged a “basic services fee” (the nondeclinable fee allowed by the FTC) of $1,638. The other three Amarillo funeral homes in the survey charged an average of $863.

A Timemagazine price survey found that Amarillo’s Boxwell Brothers, an independent, charged $185 for embalming, but the Loewen’s N. S. Griggs charged $425.

It is numbers like these that account for the complacency of Loewen’s recent report to the SEC pointing to “lack of price sensitivity” on the part of the consumer as one of the “attractive industry fundamentals” of the funeral business.

The stockholder owners of the corporate consolidators have reason to be pleased by the reports of soaring profits. But what of their consumer victims?

The painful and humiliating experience of Mrs. Ann R. Merchant, as reported in her letter to the Funeral and Memorial Societies of America (FAMSA), may be seen as representative:

My husband died very unexpectedly 6 weeks ago in Cleveland, TX. at 43 yrs. of age. There are only 2 funeral homes here, both owned by the same huge corporation. We have 2 small children that heard him fall when he had his heart attack, therefore you can see what kind of state I was in when I went to the funeral home the next morning to make arrangements. I thought the arrangements would take approx. 30 min., instead of the 3-1/2 hrs. it took, by which time I was begging them to let me go home. But no, I had to go out to physically pick a cemetery plot because of state law (so they said, I would really be interested in knowing if Texas has such a law).

I only have one receipt the funeral home gave me. The first charge on it is for professional services of $1990. Embalming was $525, dressing & cosmetology $225, visitation $255, funeral ceremony $425 (this was held at the church we attend, but the funeral home said the price was the same whether it was held there or elsewhere, that doesn’t sound right, does it?), transfer remains to funeral home $125 (they told me that the county paid for transportation and autopsy fees, doesn’t that sound like a double charge?), hearse driver $275, Flower van

& driver $95, casket-18 g. Ocean Blue steel crepe lining $2095 (it was one of the least expensive in the casket room they just threw the doors open and told me to browse and find what I wanted, luckily my brother was there to catch me before I hit the floor from the shock of being thrust in the midst of a room full of caskets), concrete box $425, memorial register $25 (the little book visitors sign in), memorial cards $25 per 100 (I could have done a much better job on my computer if I had been able to at the time), death certificates $18, for a grand total of $6503. But that is not all, I signed an insurance assignment to them for $9097, so apparently there is $2594 worth of cemetery expenses. I know the plot was $895 and I bought two apparently. I don’t know what the rest is for since I received no copy of a receipt or price list on this portion of the bill.

I bought these plots next to a friend of mine that bought hers less than 2 yrs. ago for $395 ea. All the cemeteries and funeral homes in a large surrounding area have been bought out by some huge corporation (I need to find out the name of it) that has apparently more than doubled all prices. The cemetery said the only way to get a plot cheaper is to buy pre-need and save $200. They didn’t seem to understand that I am not dead yet, therefore mine is pre-need and I want it for $695. I asked them to just take the $895 for my plot off the bill because I did not want it, but in a couple of weeks I may buy one pre-need for $695. They said I couldn’t do that because they knew who I was now.

The cemetery sales mgr. and a sales rep. came out 2½ weeks after the funeral for a “condolence” call, but which was actually to sell a headstone. They called me the next week with a price for what I wanted of $2700. They called back the next week to tell me they had gotten a new price list in and all the prices had gone up. That was basically the final straw, I proceeded to tell them exactly what I thought of their rip-off ways when people couldn’t think about what they were doing, or signing. The lady hung up on me and I haven’t heard from the people again.

I just received their check from the life ins. 2 days ago, made out to me and Pace-Stancil Funeral Home. I haven’t

taken it by there yet, because I want to know what my legal rights are and if I am entitled to some kind of refund. These folks are legally robbing people while they are speaking so softly to you like they actually care, which is a crock.

I am going to ask for a refund of $2200, the $2000 rip-off professional fee and the $200 off of my plot. I think that is more than fair, they made plenty of money from all the other overcharges, don’t you agree?

Please e-mail me back with answers or opinions, as I really need to take this check in to them next week before they dig up my husband and cremate him (that’s what the cemetery rules say will happen for non-payment).

Ann R. Merchant

Tucked into SCI’s annual financial report is a conveniently detachable card addressed “To our valued SCI shareholders, directed toward the more personal side of funeral service.” The message:

As an owner of shares in SCI, you are probably aware that the company’s name does not appear on any of our family homes or cemeteries. If you, your family, or your friends are ever in the need of the services we provide, or would like to investigate the advantages of preplanning, the 800 number below has been enclosed to help you find the SCI firm most convenient to you.

As we work to help your company grow and prosper, we are also here to help you when you have suffered a personal loss.

The socko ending, as a journalist friend of mine would call it: “Please accept our sincere apologies if this message reaches you at a time of loss.” On the other hand, what could be a more propitious time for the message to arrive, enabling the shareholder to kill two birds with one stone, as it were: making an expeditious decision about how and where to dispose of the departed, and at the same time enhancing the value of his stock?

I rang the number, 1-800-9CARING, and obtained the names of SCI mortuaries in a number of cities across the country. Eventually I got the price lists from a dozen or so. These are several pages long, covering a dizzying variety of “services” and merchandise: caskets, vaults, burial clothing. The accompanying explanatory text is virtually identical for all SCI establishments, and it is to this that one must look for clarification, if any. And here is where the full import of the Federal Trade Commission’s 1994 revision of the Funeral Rule becomes apparent.

First comes the FTC-required statement, “The goods and services shown below are those we can provide to our customers. You may choose only the items you desire. However, any funeral arrangements you select will include a charge for our basic services and overhead.”

The crunch is in that “however.” It means that whether or not you “choose” or “desire” any of the listed “basic services,” you will have to pay for all of them willy-nilly. And here they are, set forth in bold type: “MINIMUM SERVICES OF THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR AND STAFF. This fee for our basic services and overhead will be added to the total cost of the funeral arrangements you select.”

“Personnel available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to respond to initial call.”That is, somebody will answer the phone, most likely an office worker trained for the purpose and stationed at the central clustering point.

“Arrangement Conference.”Mortuary-speak for clinching the sale.

“Coordinating service plans with cemetery, crematory, and/or other parties involved in the final disposition of the deceased.”This would be akin to what your travel agent does when she arranges your schedule involving plane, rental car, hotel, etc.

“Securing and recording the death certificate and disposition permit.”The doctor or coroner supplies the death certificate. The non-medical death-certificate information must be supplied by the family. Permit-for-disposition forms are simple and routine, and are often signed by the morticians themselves, then dropped in the mail.

“Clerical assistance in the completion of various forms associated with a funeral.”These forms are needed to apply for monies due from insurance policies, Social Security, Veterans Administration, trade union death benefits, and the like. The principal information needed? Name, address, Social Security number, date and place of death.

“Also covers overhead, such as facility maintenance, equipment and inventory costs, insurance and administrative expenses, and general governmental compliance.”Curiouser and curiouser. Here the buyer is assessed for everything from upkeep of the parking lot to dusting the office furniture, and, on top of that, under “government compliance” must pay for the funeral parlor to refrain from breaking the law.

Most of these “services” could be performed by the deceased’s family and would, in any event, take up a minimal amount of funeral home staff time. This is a prime example of the Federal Trade Commission’s craven capitulation to industry lobbyists.

What the FTC now calls a “minimum service charge” or “non-declinable” fee is known in the trade less elegantly as the “cover charge.” Although the chain-owned mortuaries are not the only ones guilty of abusing this fee, they are the most conspicuous:

Forest Park Westheimer Funeral Home in Houston, Texas, where SCI’s world headquarters are located, charges $1,682 for “Minimum Services” (or basic service fee), about average for the twenty SCI-owned homes in that city. Forest Park’s cheapest “traditional” funeral is $7,020. It includes a metal casket in a choice of three colors (the wholesale cost of which is under $400). Forest Park also boasts a cemetery, a mausoleum with additional crypts now under construction, and an innovation—“lawn crypts,” crypts beneath the sod. Thanks to the dogged determination of a live and feisty Marcia Carter, longtime resident of Houston who spent days unraveling Forest Lawn Westheimer prices, a fully developed picture emerges.

Marcia happens to be the owner of two FPW crypts, bought by her parents in 1960 for $1,705. When her parents died they were cremated elsewhere, and over the years Marcia had made sporadic efforts to unload the crypts. FPW declined to buy them back; “I was told they had very little value because they were in the ‘old, outdoor’ section of the mausoleum.” She told me, “The desirable crypts are now in the new air-conditioned section.” Marcia next proposed to donate the crypts to a local church or nursing home for the use of a destitute family. “The cemetery told me that transfers of the crypts to ‘unknown persons’ is prohibited. I asked if that didn’t infringe on my rights as the legal owner. But they said that the cemetery reserved the right to have the final say as to who would be buried there. At this point I lost interest in the problem, bouncing between the comical absurdity of the whole thing and righteous indignation.”

In the spring of 1995, I had arranged an interview with Robert Waltrip, SCI founder and CEO, in Houston about these matters. I had many extremely friendly phone conversations with Bill Barrett, whose full title is “director of corporate communications of SCI Management Corporation,” in Houston. Just when a date for our meeting had been set, I got a fax from Mr. Barrett: “I regret to report that Mr. Waltrip’s travel and business commitments over the next couple of months are going to make it impossible to schedule time to visit you.”

This was sad news indeed. I had been most keenly looking forward to a long, informative chat with Mr. Waltrip. But the reason for canceling the interview could be glimpsed in an article written by Mr. Barrett for “Inside SCI: A Publication for SCI Employees and Affiliates” slipped to me by a disaffected former SCI employee. Mr. Barrett warns his readers: “An interview with the media is serious business. The image and reputation of your business is at stake. If the preparation leads you to conclude it is not in your best interest to do the interview, don’t.”

An address given by Mr. Barrett at the Conference of the American Cemetery Association in April 1995 on “how to identify and respond to a crisis situation” elaborates. Some excerpts:

1. Define the problem. Is it life threatening or simply a corporate embarrassment?…

2. Control the information being released. Assign a single spokesperson when possible…. If you have to have more than one, it is important that everyone sing from the same song-book….

3. Select a crisis team. Your lawyer should either be a part of that team, or at least have the opportunity to review the strategy….

4. Know where you are going. Before agreeing to do an interview, you have the right to know the name of the reporter you will be talking with and whether or not the reporter has already drawn a conclusion from the information he or she has….

5. Be prepared. No amount of work you do in preparation for a media interview is wasted. And sometimes this work leads you to the conclusion that it is not in your best interest to do the interview. If that is the case, don’t! I was asked once to have someone appear on the Phil Donahue show to defend the industry against allegations by some members of the clergy and grieving families. No Way!

How could I hope to succeed where Donahue failed? I decided to try another tack and metamorphose into Marcia Carter’s beloved old Aunt Jessie from England.

Aunt Jessie seemed like the perfect solution. Alone in the world, her British contemporaries long dead, she would welcome the idea of Houston as a final resting place, close to her niece’s family. Marcia phoned for an appointment, and together we repaired to Forest Park Westheimer on May 26, 1995. (Dates are important in this line of work; Forest Park’s general price list notes that “these prices are effective as of March 10, 1995, but are subject to change without notice.”)

A stylish young “pre-need counselor” named Sandy showed us around. Marcia said she was keen to see everything, since she might want to do some advance planning for her own family. Very sensible, Sandy said. And she should decide soon, as the prices for crypts would be going up on June 1. “You mean six days from now? That doesn’t give us much time… and how much more would they cost?” Sandy didn’t know the actual cost; that’s up to the head office, which hasn’t yet announced the new prices. But the prices of crypts normally double about every five years, she said. (Mulling this over later, Aunt Jessie and Marcia reckoned that at this rate Marcia’s existing crypts must now be worth $217,600.)

Sandy showed us everything. As Aunt Jessie, I was especially interested in the crypts, so unlike the ones in Westminister Abbey. More like mini-mini high-rise condos, I said. These coffin-sized concrete boxes, six to a tier, were variously priced from $7,395 to $8,895. Why the $1,500 difference, inasmuch as they appear to be identical? The more expensive ones are at heart level, Sandy explained, adding, “Oh, by the way, there’s an opening and closing charge of $660 per vault.”

The following day Marcia phoned the SCI headquarters to inquire about the June 1 price increase for the crypts. There was a certain amount of foot-dragging, during which she was shunted from executive to executive; eventually Mr. Pat Geary, manager of Memorial Oaks, yet another SCI mortuary-cemetery combination, rang back to say that there was no increase planned for the crypts, Sandy was mistaken. (Or was she merely following suggestions given in sales courses? Marcia wondered.)

For some days thereafter, Marcia strove to sort out what the total cost would be for Forest Park’s cheapest plan—first, if one of the crypts was used; second, for a “direct burial” or a “direct cremation,” meaning no “viewing” of the body and no religious service.

“Well, I must say, these people really don’t like to talk prices!” she said. David Dettling, funeral director at Forest Park, was less than forthcoming about the first item, “Minimum Services.” “He could not/would not break it down,” Marcia told me. “There’s no way of avoiding that charge, even if we are able to perform most of the things enumerated ourselves.”

Next on the price list: PREPARATION OF THE BODY. Embalming, $425. Refrigeration, $425. “They get their $425 either way,” said Marcia. “If you choose not to be embalmed, then you have to be refrigerated, even if you have direct cremation. Mr. Dettling also told me that an unembalmed body can only be viewed by the legal next of kin, and then only for a few moments. This has to do with liability of the funeral home for ‘blood-borne pathogens’!!” (One of the more dazzling flights of fancy; as any pathologist will tell you, a dead body presents no risk whatsoever of infecting the living when there’s no contagious disease.)