We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The “good death” is a dynamic concept and has evolved over time to become a “revivalist” good death: a planned, peaceful, and dignified death, at home, surrounded by family members. As the “good death” continues to evolve, the key questions are: How do cultural perceptions of death and dying change? What are the forces that shape Western attitudes and beliefs around death and dying? And how does the “good death” discourse frame the dying experience in contemporary society? The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the underlying discourse in the literature on the “good death” in Western societies.
Method:
An integrative literature review of data from experimental and nonexperimental sources in PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and SocINDEX of 39 articles from 1992 to 2014.
Results:
Four main themes emerged from reviewing 39 articles on the “good death”: (1) the “good death” as control, (2) the wrong “good death,” (3) the threatened “good death,” and (4) the denial of dying.
Significance of Results:
Evolving in response to prominent social attitudes and values, the contemporary “good death” is a powerful, constraining discourse that limits spontaneity and encourages one way to die. Social, political, and demographic changes now threaten the stability of the “good death”; dying is framed as an increasingly negative or even unnecessary process, thus marginalizing the positive aspects of dying and rendering dying absent, invisible.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.