What People Actually Say Before They Die

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

From The Atlantic:

Mort Felix liked to say that his name, when read as two Latin words, meant “happy death.” When he was sick with the flu, he used to jokingly remind his wife, Susan, that he wanted Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” played at his deathbed. But when his life’s end arrived at the age of 77, he lay in his study in his Berkeley, California, home, his body besieged by cancer and his consciousness cradled in morphine, uninterested in music and refusing food as he dwindled away over three weeks in 2012. “Enough,” he told Susan. “Thank you, and I love you, and enough.” When she came downstairs the next morning, she found Felix dead.

During those three weeks, Felix had talked. He was a clinical psychologist who had also spent a lifetime writing poetry, and though his end-of-life speech often didn’t make sense, it seemed to draw from his attention to language. “There’s so much so in sorrow,” he said at one point. “Let me down from here,” he said at another. “I’ve lost my modality.” To the surprise of his family members, the lifelong atheist also began hallucinating angels and complaining about the crowded room—even though no one was there.

Felix’s 53-year-old daughter, Lisa Smartt, kept track of his utterances, writing them down as she sat at his bedside in those final days. Smartt majored in linguistics at UC Berkeley in the 1980s and built a career teaching adults to read and write. Transcribing Felix’s ramblings was a sort of coping mechanism for her, she says. Something of a poet herself (as a child, she sold poems, three for a penny, like other children sold lemonade), she appreciated his unmoored syntax and surreal imagery. Smartt also wondered whether her notes had any scientific value, and eventually she wrote a book, Words on the Threshold, published in early 2017, about the linguistic patterns in 2,000 utterances from 181 dying people, including her father.

. . . .

To assess people’s “mental condition just before death,” MacDonald mined last-word anthologies, the only linguistic corpus then available, dividing people into 10 occupational categories (statesmen, philosophers, poets, etc.) and coding their last words as sarcastic, jocose, contented, and so forth. MacDonald found that military men had the “relatively highest number of requests, directions, or admonitions,” while philosophers (who included mathematicians and educators) had the most “questions, answers, and exclamations.” The religious and royalty used the most words to express contentment or discontentment, while the artists and scientists used the fewest.

MacDonald’s work “seems to be the only attempt to evaluate last words by quantifying them, and the results are curious,” wrote the German scholar Karl Guthke in his book Last Words, on Western culture’s long fascination with them. Mainly, MacDonald’s work shows that we need better data about verbal and nonverbal abilities at the end of life. One point that Guthke makes repeatedly is that last words, as anthologized in multiple languages since the 17th century, are artifacts of an era’s concerns and fascinations about death, not “historical facts of documentary status.” They can tell us little about a dying person’s actual ability to communicate.

. . . .

At the end of life, Keeley says, the majority of interactions will be nonverbal as the body shuts down and the person lacks the physical strength, and often even the lung capacity, for long utterances. “People will whisper, and they’ll be brief, single words—that’s all they have energy for,” Keeley said. Medications limit communication. So does dry mouth and lack of dentures. She also noted that family members often take advantage of a patient’s comatose state to speak their piece, when the dying person cannot interrupt or object.

. . . .

We have a rich picture of the beginnings of language, thanks to decades of scientific research with children, infants, and even babies in the womb. But if you wanted to know how language ends in the dying, there’s next to nothing to look up, only firsthand knowledge gained painfully.

Link to the rest at The Atlantic

Last words have a unique standing in the legal world.

From The Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School:

Definition

dying declaration is a statement made by a declarant, who is unavailable to testify in court (typically because of the declarant’s death), who made the statement under a belief of certain or impending death. The statement must also relate to what the declarant believed to be the cause or circumstances of the declarant’s impending death.

Overview

An out-of-court statement is referred to as hearsay. A dying declaration is a type of hearsay. However, unlike regular hearsay, a dying declaration is admissible in court. As such, a dying declaration is as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Other general rules of admissibility also apply, such as the requirement that the declaration must be based on the declarant’s actual knowledge.

Link to the rest at The Legal Information Institute

Needless to say, dying declarations are not commonly observed in most litigation. The theory behind the admissibility of such a statement is

1) Of course, the person who made the statement is not available to come to court and testify in person; and

2) A person at the end of his/her life is unlikely to tell a lie because she/he is about to face judgment in the world beyond.

PG is unaware of any studies which have explored whether dying declarations are, in fact, accurate and true, and the judge or jury trying a case in which a dying declaration may give such evidence the weight they believe it should have in coming to a final decision about the case.

 

6 thoughts on “What People Actually Say Before They Die”

  1. “though his end-of-life speech often didn’t make sense, it seemed to draw from his attention to language. There’s so much so in sorrow,” he said at one point. “Let me down from here,” he said at another. “I’ve lost my modality.”

    Those three, at least, make sense to me.

    “There’s so much so in sorrow,”

    So-rrow. A play on words. An existential recognition.

    “Let me down from here,”

    This is where I will stop.

    “I’ve lost my modality.”

    I am no longer a part of what exists.

    • Rather philosophical, to be invoking modal reality at that time. Sounds like he had a witty sense of humor.

  2. It seems to me that the exception for dying declarations is closely related to the exception for exited utterances.

    https://rhjameslaw.com/thats-hearsay-excited-utterance-exception/
    An excited utterance is the event speaking and not the speaker. It is an exception to the hearsay rule, carved from human experience, which teaches that an unreflected, spontaneous utterance made under the impact of a shocking, unexpected emotion, precipitated by a traumatic event, renders the speaker the medium and not the message.

  3. “PG is unaware of any studies which have explored whether dying declarations are, in fact, accurate and true…”

    On his deathbed, Alger Hiss still maintained his innocence. After the Soviet Union collapsed and historians got a chance to rummage through the files at the Kremlin, guess whose name was on the KGB’s payroll.

    There are any number of reasons one might might make a dying declaration that is untruthful — from protecting one’s reputation, family, friends, or co-conspirators to harming or even “framing” one’s enemies. And, of course, the immenence of death is not likely to improve one’s memory; even people in the best of health have false memories.

    • Agreed on the skepticism. I think the idea that a deathbed confession is true hinges on whether the speaker believes anything in particular might happen to their soul, or if they even believe there is a such thing. If you’re not concerned about hell, you’ll lie through your teeth. If you think hell might be real, you’ll hedge your bets and tell the truth.

      But we the living can’t necessarily know what’s in the dying person’s mind**, so we should trust but verify.

      **I did like the notion in the Telzey Amberdon stories of cops “deadbraining” a dead criminal to see what the criminal was seeing/hearing/thinking in the moments before death.

  4. I recall studying the hearsay rule in Evidence class. We spent one class on hearsay and the next three classes on exceptions to it.

    Addendum: Hearsay is why you never, never talk to cops. Anything you say that is detrimental to your case, the officer can relate, and it is admissible. Anything you say that is exculpatory is hearsay and inadmissible.

Comments are closed.