“Death and Dying” Critical Analysis The chapter “Death and Dying” explores the evolution of the definition of a “good” death and a “bad” death, care of the dying, and the sentiment and definition of death itself Cole 104). With medical advancements came a shift in each of these areas, which further strained already weak the doctor-patient relationship. For the majority of human history, a “good” death meant dying peacefully in sleep in the home, this was called a “tame death” in the Middle Ages (Cole 106). Another type of good death would be one where the dying have “settled their worldly affairs and submitted to death and the afterlife” (Cole 106). In this time, a “bad” death would have been by infectious disease, like the Black Plague,
…show more content…
With the continuing advancement of medicine and general separation of religion, “the fear of death” was “replaced by the joy of life,” which essentially means people are now more and more inclined to desire a full, happy life on earth than to live in fear of death (Cole 110). Another shift that occurred with these medical advancements was the actual definition or “requirements” of death. Death used to be defined as simply the stopping of the heart, but with new technology that can keep a heart beating and the body alive seemingly forever, the new medical definition is that of “brain death,” where no brain waves are detected (Cole 113). This definition very clearly parallels the care of the dying. While the heart symbolizes a comforting, loving death that the ministers did their best to provide before medical advancement, the brain symbolizes intellectualism and the medical knowledge necessary to try to save the dying, even if it means giving false hope and not prioritizing …show more content…
They now believe their purpose is to save lives rather than to do what their patient wishes (Cole 116). This causes an incredible strain on the doctor-patient relationship, because the dying may want to simply be euthanized and have a “good death” while they can, while doctors are often legally obligated to do everything in their power to save a patient (Cole 116). This can cause pain, both mentally and physically. This is often the decision people with terminal cancer are faced with. They have the option to proceed with aggressive treatment which might temporarily cure the disease and will surely cause them pain, or to simply live with their disease and pain medications until they die or are euthanized. This brings us back to the definition of a “good death.” Whether the doctor wants to give treatment for revenue or out of legitimate care for the patient, the patient will surely suffer to die at a later date, and prolonged suffering is a “bad death.” Are a few years of chemotherapy, radiation, and, if one is lucky, worrying about the return of an incurable disease worth it? Or would it simply be better to die in the comfort of one’s home, knowing that one did the best they could to live out their final days as happily as possible? Doctors will push for the first option, rather than the last, because they are more interested in the science of saving and their mortality rate rather than the sentiments of their
With the continuing advancement of medicine and general separation of religion, “the fear of death” was “replaced by the joy of life,” which essentially means people are now more and more inclined to desire a full, happy life on earth than to live in fear of death (Cole 110). Another shift that occurred with these medical advancements was the actual definition or “requirements” of death. Death used to be defined as simply the stopping of the heart, but with new technology that can keep a heart beating and the body alive seemingly forever, the new medical definition is that of “brain death,” where no brain waves are detected (Cole 113). This definition very clearly parallels the care of the dying. While the heart symbolizes a comforting, loving death that the ministers did their best to provide before medical advancement, the brain symbolizes intellectualism and the medical knowledge necessary to try to save the dying, even if it means giving false hope and not prioritizing …show more content…
They now believe their purpose is to save lives rather than to do what their patient wishes (Cole 116). This causes an incredible strain on the doctor-patient relationship, because the dying may want to simply be euthanized and have a “good death” while they can, while doctors are often legally obligated to do everything in their power to save a patient (Cole 116). This can cause pain, both mentally and physically. This is often the decision people with terminal cancer are faced with. They have the option to proceed with aggressive treatment which might temporarily cure the disease and will surely cause them pain, or to simply live with their disease and pain medications until they die or are euthanized. This brings us back to the definition of a “good death.” Whether the doctor wants to give treatment for revenue or out of legitimate care for the patient, the patient will surely suffer to die at a later date, and prolonged suffering is a “bad death.” Are a few years of chemotherapy, radiation, and, if one is lucky, worrying about the return of an incurable disease worth it? Or would it simply be better to die in the comfort of one’s home, knowing that one did the best they could to live out their final days as happily as possible? Doctors will push for the first option, rather than the last, because they are more interested in the science of saving and their mortality rate rather than the sentiments of their