Coping With Death - Admission/Application Essay Example

Coping With Death No matter what we do, no matter what we believe, we all die. The theme of death, like life, has ever been a common motif in many forms of art, literature, thought, and philosophy. Death is the “great equalizer,” it comes to all, whether they seek it or not. Save the most isolated hermit, at one point in his/her life, every person must confront and ultimately accept the death of another. This is not to confer a sense of ease regarding this experience. The real thing is without question more striking, heart-rendering, and even life-changing than any individual thought written and expressed here. For psychologists and sociologists death is considered to be a most difficult subject to broach with another person, particularly on a personal basis. The reality of death, aside from the basic question of the individual confronting it, can also provoke several questions both political and philosophical in nature. The issue of euthanasia, which is the practice of “encouraging” death (that is letting someone die), stirs passions among any who discuss it. From the point of view of both science and philosophy, death is not so concrete a thing as many think, its precise conditions not being universally agreed upon. Artists and writers have ever sought to confront and describe death, especially what it means for a given person. In Dylan Thomas’ poem “Do not go gentle into that good night,” the death theme serves to convey a sense of finality and mortality to all men. All things come to an end. The only choice men have is how they choose to confront it. Thomas addresses the way in which different men confront, conceptualize, and/or accept death only to end by railing against it himself. He writes of “wise…good…wild…[and] grave” (Thomas 1971) men who each in their own way meet death. For example, “Wise men know dark is right.” They accept death (“dark”) as being part of the natural order of things. Yet they think that, due to their wisdom, they ought to be recognized or perhaps even famous. “Because their words had forked no lightning they / Do not go gentle into that good night” (1971). “Wild men who caught and sang the sun…too late…grieved [it]. Thomas maintains a constant light/dark imagery to draw a distinction between the life and last moments of each type of man and death. This dichotomy of life (“light…bright…sun”) and death (“dying of the light…green [i.e. dark] bay…dark…blinding sight”) together serve to highlight the transition that all men must face (Thomas 1971). “Grave men…with blinding sight,” wishing they did not see the evils and sufferings of life, realize that “blind eyes,” prevent one from seeing the world and thus render their subject “gay.” The final man facing death is Thomas’ father, for whom he would give anything to keep alive. He begs him not “to go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” Accepting the death of a stranger is easier than the death of a loved one. Psychologists, social workers, and doctors often find themselves in the unwanted position of either having to inform a person of a loved one’s death or having to help a patient cope with his/her impending death. A doctor must have a formidable constitution in order to go through this sort of thing on a regular basis. He/she must first deal with the death of the patient from his/her own perspective. This can sometimes involve a feeling of inadequacy or failure for not having prevented the death. The doctor then has to proceed to tell the patient’s loved ones of the latter’s death. Psychologists sometimes refer to the deliverer of the bad news as the “death teller.” “The actual delivery of the news of death presents the receiver with an imposed rite of passage (for example, from wife to widow) that represents a liminal or transitional stage, however brief, which tends to be unstructured and problematic” (Clark 1982, 366-367). For the doctor the acceptance and wherewithal needed surely builds and comes with time. For the patient on the other hand, the experience can be both singular and, from a life perspective, an unforgettable moment, depending on who it is that has died. The work of “death telling” then is a most difficult task for “various professionals who, by virtue of their occupations, must confront friends or total strangers to deliver the bad news” (Clark 1982, 367). It is even more difficult to the unfortunate family members and loved ones of the person who has died. Accepting death by the patient is no easy thing either. It requires a sober and realistic understanding of one’s situation. For some the matter is easily accepted, for others it is denied to no end. From a societal perspective patients with terminal diseases and/or conditions or who exist in a vegetable state from which they will never awaken despite still being technically alive present certain ethical and moral quandaries. In modern American society the segment of the population that is retired and “older” is exponentially growing due both to advances in medicine and to the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. Because death comes to all, there does seem to be a certain irony that so much of modern medicine seeks to put off death at all costs. This does not only concern machines that sustain those who would otherwise be dead but also all manner of pharmaceuticals and procedures which seek to lengthen life. It is almost as if many people today do not want to accept death at all. The growth of the wonders of science and the decline of traditional religion has certainly not helped. Many people find themselves without the means to understand and confront the prospect of death. For society though there is unquestionably no political question as polemical and acrimonious as the debate surrounding euthanasia. This issue unites some of the subjects discussed thus far. It not only concerns a confrontation and acceptance of death but also whether or not society is willing to let someone die who is suffering. From a scientific standpoint, there has been some debate as to when death occurs. This of course affects the euthanasia debate. Traditionally, medicine considered death to have occurred “[w]hen heart beat and breathing [had] stopped for about 15-20 minutes...a so-called ‘heart death’” (Brante 1991, 393-394). In recent decades medical technology markedly progressed. Machines which can maintain pulmonary and respiratory function were developed. This has of course helped many people to survive a horrific accident and go on to live healthy lives. It also forced the medical field to redefine death as also concerning brain function. “If death is defined as the termination of brain functions, it can be much more precisely identified” (Brante 1991, 394). This of course has posed certain philosophical problems. Typically philosophers argued about what happens after death to a person. With the advances in technology, the ability to pinpoint the time and moment of death has become more complicated. Furthermore, a patient being kept alive by machines is not technically dead. And yet he/she cannot be said to be alive in the way that that expression is commonly used. The patient can neither speak, see, or interact socially even though his/her heart is still beating. This brings us to the issue of euthanasia. Euthanasia creates the controversy that it does because it concerns not just the suffering and death of a patient but also society’s beliefs and views regarding choice, death, and life. Euthanasia comes from the union of two Greek words eu meaning “well” and thanatos meaning “death.” The idea being that a death free of pain is a good one. There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive euthanasia is less polemical. It simply involves “pulling the plug” and letting natural processes take over. Active Euthanasia is more controversial because it not only involves allowing someone to die but also actively seeking death on the part of a doctor or patient with full mental faculties deciding to take, for example, a lethal dose of a drug in order to bring about death (Campbell 1999, 242-243). It stands then as one of modern society’s most audacious confrontations with death. It involves the “active” furtherance of death on the part of the patient’s doctor or of the patient him/herself. In 21st century American society the right to choose is greatly valued: how to live, where to live, what to believe, and who to love. In a way it seems strange that there is so much controversy concerning what is just another choice; though this one is not for life but rather for death. If the patient has a pre-arranged legal document/agreement with his/her doctor, a so-called “living will,” and that same patient should be medically incapacitated due to a terminal illness or condition (be it cancer or a car accident), he/she can be allowed to die. With active euthanasia this would involve the doctor ‘actively’ bringing about the patient’s death because his/her condition, though horribly painful, will not immediately cause death. The process is “hastened” by the doctor through the use of drugs. This consequently brings the question of coping with death to a whole new level. On the part of society it means that death is recognized as a very real thing and though horrible, it is no less horrible than a person who must live in agony while awaiting it. From the perspective of the patient who has chosen euthanasia, it represents a most unmitigated understanding and acceptance of death as not only a fact but also as a desired end. PARAGRAGH - PERSONAL SECTION ON DEATH Death then is an issue and reality that every human must face and accept, whether he/she likes it or not. Artists, social scientists, doctors, and patients all have differing ways of interpreting and facing death. For society, it presents a host of controversial issues which deserve public discussion. Whether accepted or not, death is a part of the natural order of things and can no more be avoided than hunger or growing old. As Thomas put it “Rage, rage, against the dying of the night” (Thomas 1971). References Brante, Thomas & Margareta Hallberg. (1991). Brain or Heart? The Controversy over the Concept of Death. Social Studies of Science, 21:3, 389-413. Campbell, Neil. (1999). A Problem for the Idea of Voluntary Euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25:3, 242-244. Clark, Robert E. & Emily E. LaBeff. (1982). Death Telling: Managing the Delivery of Bad News. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 23:4, 366-380. Thomas, Dylan. “Do not go gentle into that good night.” Retrieved 4 April 2010 from Academy of American Poets Web Site: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15377#. Read More