Case Study on Death and Dying
Abstract
Every day healthcare professionals are faced with the dilemma of making decisions where cultural or religious diversity is involved. In this context, there is a need to understand the diversity of cultures and religions in providing quality and reliable care. The society today is characterized by a widened range of distinct beliefs in relation to culture and religions that are bound to affect health care operations while providing healthcare services. Given that this is the case, most nurses are required to understand and respect every culture or even belief in which they interact with. This paper will provide an analysis of two different religions on the ground of worldview perceptions and the provided case study. The religions that will be discussed as Buddhism and Christianity given that they are characterized by abundant differences, via which ethical recommendations for the case will be developed. Finally, a personal reflection is provided towards the ideal ethical considerations.
Introduction
Based on the extensive range of fears in life, the subject of dying or death is a complex and a challenging one for most individuals to flexibly deliberate. It is apparent that dying is a common and unavoidable part of universal existence for everything that has life but the subject of death remains to be distasteful to several cultures (Bregman, 2010). Nurses in their everyday operations interact with patients from differentiated faith backgrounds and therefore it is highly essential to deliver quality services that are respectful and sensitive to differing cultures. Further, the understanding of the diversity is useful in assisting the affected people to progress through the dying and death procedure with an inclusion of ethical decisions.
Brief Christianity overview
In reference to Christianity believes, the decisive and solitary main authenticity remains to be God. In this main authenticity, main can best be described as the introductory significance in the life of an individual while the authenticity refers to a tangled thing that is present in humans. In this context, in Christianity God and all his standards should at all times be accounted first within all operations in life and when making decisions. God is therefore considered to be the head of human life and in all things, he dominates (Bregman, 2010). The Christian belief is that in all the saying and doings God should come first as the owner of all things to which they must be in respect with.
Worldview Principles
Prime reality can best be described as placing the most important things in individual’s life based on the human foundation. For Buddhism prime reality offers a description that all the things are good and therefore categorized as objective being, which can be defined as an energy of awareness or existence (Coward & Stajduhar, 2012). On the other hand, in Christianity, the actual authenticity refers to God. God, in this case, is the base, the motive for life and therefore every action should be objected at generating credit in his honor. The external authenticity refers to the faith of how the universe was formed and the materials that surround humans. Christianity operates on the conviction that the world was created in about a week and the creation was based on a purpose. On the other hand, Buddhism generates the conviction that the universe holds no value and therefore their main objective is to escape from the universe as head to Paradise (Coward & Stajduhar, 2012).
In relation to Christianity, the status of the external authenticity, and everything that covers them is the world and in this context, everything in it was created by God (David, 2006). In that, God was involved in the creation of the world and guidelines which control and manages the universe for individuals to exist and accept these regulations. In Christianity, the universe’s nature which surrounds humans is perceived as a gift from the creator who is God, and this aptitude must be favored and respected (David, 2006). Based on Christian’s faith, the universe is a product of God’s words, and therefore even life was never created from the visible things.
In worldviews principles, the diversity of human beings and their beliefs is responsible for the creation of purposes and convictions. In that Christians believes that individuals were created in as God's reflection and their purpose are to spread his world to save more souls who will eventually occupy heaven (David, 2006). In Buddhism, this conviction differs as humans are the ones that possess god an aspect that is obtained via extensive meditation and rejecting earthly desires. This is additionally, directed by principles that seek to take individuals to paradise after living and the entire procedure through which salvation is acquired. Buddhism beliefs follow a more strict sequence of being reborn and reawakening. These principles are, however, based on the individual’s conduct fueled by the things that they did and those that they reject in their present life. With respect to the sequence, if one is fruitful in the present existence and acquires all the enlightenment steps this will eventually lead to them being in paradise as payment for their desirable productivity (Setta & Shemie, 2015).
George’s Morally Justified Options under Both Religions
For Christians George’s suffering would be interpreted as the willpower of God. Jesus’s death plays an integral role in Christianity and most individuals criticize this conviction by stating that it is an adoration of misery and a fascination with death. However, for Christians, they believe that it is God that offers life to humans and is the only individual that has the authority of taking it. They would, therefore, interpret it as a trial of his faith where he is therefore supposed to remain strong and let his wishes prevail. On the other hand, Buddhists would interpret it as suffering that is based on the things that he failed to accomplish or the incapability in his life to reject earthly pleasure. Buddhism is driven by the principle that the good and the undesirable things are paid by God in the present or the life acquired after death (Pappas, 2012). In this context, individuals are actually required to be respectful and fruitful and adequately reject or the earthly related pleasure so that their rebirth can be honored a failure that leads to suffering (Setta & Shemie, 2015). Both religions would reject euthanasia given that they consider life as precious and owned by God.
Case evaluation and interpretation of George’s suffering
With respect to the lack of cure for ALS and the possible effects, George opts for euthanasia. For Buddhist, the rationale being George’s suffering is based on his deeds. In that the religion advocates for desirable behavior that are fruitful in acquiring a treasurable life. Buddhist mainly considers life as a major suffering and therefore, it is only via desirable deeds that one can access heaven which is the status of the utmost meditation (Purvis, 2012). This is accounted to be the most undesirable terror that one can be situated at. On the other hand, Christianity does not believe in penalty for deeds where the suffering can, therefore, be interpreted as trial that every individual has to pass through although differently (Purvis, 2012). In that God does not subject suffering to sinners but to everyone. In the perspectives of Buddhism, euthanasia can never be feared because a rebirth will occur, while Christians would reject the option on the ground that human life is of extensive value and must be preserved. The justified option under Christianity is to support him and take care despite the challenges and allow the will of the highest to prevail while Buddhists do not fear death.
Self-reflection
In my opinion, I do believe that the morally justified option is to preserve his life and take care of him regardless of the probable outcomes. This is because life is in itself very precious and should be preserved at all times. No one has the right of deciding when life should start given that the authority of controlling the beginning and end lies in God’s hand. In this context, George should be allowed to live and to be given all the attention and medical options that seek to stabilize him without biases. Despite the lack of cure for the ailment, this does not imply that he should die to end suffering rather the suffering can be lowered by loving and offering support.
Conclusion
Worldviews differ in reference to the extensive religious and cultural differences in the society today. In this context, there is no right or undesirable action in which beliefs should be based upon given that everyone has the right to thoughts ownership. Therefore, in the quest of living superior lives, there is a need to understand the diversity of beliefs and how effective coexistence and work can be accomplished. In spite of the differentiated beliefs, standards, and morals it is the differences that make everyone unique and therefore, in creating healthcare efficiency individuals should learn to embrace diversity moderately than trying to modify them to fit with our one.
References
Bregman, L. (2010). Religion, death, and dying. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger.
Coward, H. G., & Stajduhar, K. I. (2012). Religious understandings of a good death in hospice palliative care. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pappas, D. M. (2012). The euthanasia/assisted-suicide debate. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood.
San F. Davd. (2006). “Religious Interpretations of Death, Afterlife & NDEs". Faculty Publications. Paper 32. http://digitalcommons.nl.edu/faculty_publications/32
Susan M. Setta & Sam D. Shemie. (2015). an explanation and analysis of how world religions formulate their ethical decisions on withdrawing treatment and determining death. Doi: 10.1186/s13010-015-0025-x
Taylor E. Purvis. (2012). Debating Death: Religion, Politics, and the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Yale journal of biology and medicine. 85(2): 271–284.
