Search

OBJECTIVE In our days, when life expectancy has more than doubled since the ancient times and biomedical advances blur boundaries between life and death, we face the challenging question of “when is the right time for a human being to die”. Our aim was to investigate whether and how the four Evangelists answer this question. METHOD All passages related to death were systematically searched in the Gospels via four distinct methods: (a) Reading the Gospel texts, both the originals and their translation, using the reputable publications of the Bible Society. (b) Using keywords to search three different printed directories of the New Testament known as Concordances (Bruder 1993, Erasmus Schmidt 1990, Arch. Kosmas L. Palaiogiannis 2000). (c) Using keywords to search two different electronic directories of the New Testament. (d) Reading the interpretation of the evangelic texts by the Father of the Orthodox Church Saint Theofilaktos of Bulgaria (of the 11th century). The translations to contemporary English are from http://ebible.org/web. The Gospel passages by King James’ Bible, 1611 can be found at http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org. RESULTS In total, 133 passages have been identified, some more relevant than others, 38 from Matthew’s Gospel, 30 from Mark’s, 49 from Luke’s and 23 from John’s. The three more relevant passages appear to be: (a) “No one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32). Here the emphasis is not on “when it should happen” but rather on “when it actually happens” and it is summarised as “no one knows”. (b) “Now you are releasing your servant, Master, according to your word, in peace; for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all people” (Luke 2:29-31). Here a “now” is given as an answer to “when”, however, the criterion to identify “now” as the right time (to have held Jesus in their arms) is difficult, if not impossible, for humans to apply. (c) “Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that his time had come that he would depart from this world to the Father” (John 13:1). This is equally difficult for mortals to apply. CONCLUSION The Evangelists do not answer the “when” (when is the right time for a human being to die) but rather they deal with “how” (how a human being should die). From the passage “his time has come” we can infer that also for every human being there is a right time, no sooner (premature death) nor later (postmature death); however, the Gospels do not provide us with a way to determine this time. Future and more extensive research, including the rest of the New Testament and all of the Old Testament as well as the Patristic writings could strengthen or weaken our conclusion or perhaps even find the answer on “when” should humans die. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE The problem faced by the researcher when seeking the opinion of society is that its members are unaware of what exactly we are talking about when we ask them when should we die (WSWD). It is not something that can be taught in words. Informed opinion can be taken by those who have had the opportunity to reflect upon their own long experience. The point of view of the caregivers who have long personal experience is presented. METHOD Fifteen caregivers, fourteen women and one man, aged 23-74 years (57 in average), caring incurably ill relatives for 0.3-20 years (8 in average), narrate for 10 to 338 minutes (91 in average) their experiences, “those experiences that they had not dared to admit even to themselves” (qualitative study). At the end, they were invited to answer three questions, if they had not already done so while narrating: When should the care-receiver die or have died? If you were at his/her place, when should you die? When should a human being die? RESULTS More than two thirds of these caregivers (11/15, 73%) answered that their care-receivers die later than it should (postmature death), 2/15 (13%) that the time of death was the right one (mature death), and 13% that their care-receivers died earlier than it should (premature death). Almost all caregivers (only one stated “don’t know what I would do”) would prefer to die earlier than their care-receivers. Finally, their definitions of a mature death include “when there is no future” (43%), “when one cannot serve himself” (43%), “when one cannot think rationally” (7%), and “when one ceases to rejoice” (7%). CONCLUSION The non-self-handling and when there is no future are considered as mature death criteria by the experientially informed long-term caregivers of incurably ill relatives, more than two thirds of which consider that their care-receivers die after their right time (postmature death). It is assumed that statistically representative sample of caregivers from across the country would give the same answers; however, well designed quantitative study is required for this purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Balancing between arrogant knowledge and sensible and wise acceptance of the human limits, the author attempts to answer the question “when should we die?” (WSWD). Four key causes are identified and investigated, which the author believes are affecting people’s way of thinking and acting. These causes (the effect of technology, the power of authority, the power of selfishness, the weakness of self-criticism and self-control) are analyzed briefly. In conclusion, it would be beneficial to mankind if passionate rationalism (i.e. logic enriched only by human pride that everything should be solved on the sole criterion of pure knowledge) could be replaced by “apathetic”, passionless, rationalism (a logic which will be free from a passionate approach). Therefore, yes to the acceptance and development of the logic and knowledge, but always when these are intertwined with the spirit and beauty of soul and of the timeless core values. Only then death could be approached as a natural outcome and not as a technical necessity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An embarrassed speaker gives a talk in a conference, using as an example the story of Hope, an imaginary hero. Hope was a young Greek woman, student of medicine, who faced at the age of 23 the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. This diagnosis changed her life radically. In the various stages of the disease, another person from her family or working environment wishes her death. Who will take, finally, the brave decision? She, her parents, her siblings, her acquaintances, the audience, the speaker, or God? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does the medical doctor have the right to intervene in the physical progress of the patient to death by accelerating this process? Is the medical doctor obliged to respect the will of the patient to end his or her life? Granted that the doctor’s mission is to save and heal, what is his/her responsibility to the patient? Leaving apart medical deontology, the rules of law that reflect ethos and morality in every society at a given time, determine the implications for the medical doctor for choosing each available option. In the Hellenic Republic, any action or absence thereof that brings in faster passing is a felony. It is needless to say that the medical doctor has the responsibility to offer palliative care. In Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg euthanasia is conditionally allowed. In Switzerland aiding a patient to commit suicide is allowed. In Spain cutting off medical support is allowed. In France the interruption of unnecessary medical care is obligatory. Least but not last, caring for weaker and more vulnerable members of a society is a measure of its civilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To whom the tribute “when should we die” (WSWD) is addressed? To those the answer of which is not “never.” The (correct) question “when?” replaces the (wrong) demand of the era: “we should never die” (“forbidden death”). Is when the quality of life switches from positive to negative the right time to welcome death? (good death; mature, neither premature nor post-mature). Archbishop Eugenios Voulgaris stated “when my destiny will come, which meek and unperturbed I wait, I consent to have a good death” (Treatise on Euthanasia, 1804). In his era, the “when” was coincident with “how”. Nowadays? The end-of-life dilemmas remain. Longtime carers of incurably ill patients may have a clearer idea of when the death should be welcomed: they have experienced at first hand the World Health Organization famous definition of health, from which, unfortunately, death is absent (isn’t death a part of healthy life?) Eight people, the paths of which had previously crossed, met together for one and a half hour on November 22, 2014, to probe “when”. First, they posed openly the question (“the journey of hope”, K. Vazouras) and the prerequisites for a correct answer (“arrogance or acceptance?”, A. Prokopiou), and contributed the response of Gospels (father S. Atmatzidis), philosophers (A. Kerasidou), law (E. Maragkaki), history (S. Geroulanos), society (K. Gatsiou), and their own (I. Dimoliatis). The audience added their touches. A place to Poetry was (a posteriori) offered (K. Cavafy). Waiting readers’ response. D. Sideris started with his own contribution (our three Egos: their birth and their death). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What does the question “when should a person die?” actually mean? How the verb ‘should’ ought to be understood in this context? In this presentation I start by focusing on the term ‘should’. I argue that the verb ‘should’ can be understood as signifying necessity (logical or natural) or obligation. Based on this primary analysis, I go on to propose four different answers to the question “when should a person die?”: 1) When his/her time has come; 2) when he/she does not wish to live anymore; 3) when his/her life is not worth living; and, 4) when the body cannot sustain life anymore. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When should we die? (WSWD). Our round table discussed it for the first time openly. The journey of hope (that never dies) put it. The “arrogance or acceptance” sets the prerequisite in order to answer the dilemma (when things cannot go as I want, I should want as they go; i.e., when my time will come, which I peacefully and calmly wait, to have a good death). The Gospels do not respond to WSWD: at that era life expectancy was only 35 years, people had no such problem to solve, neither they could even imagine that it could ever exist. Philosophers oppose responses (when one’s time has come; when one doesn’t want to live anymore; when one’s life is not worth living; when the body cannot sustain life anymore) which it is time to compose (philosophy is the study of death! - Plato). The people (the society), if they have experienced the dilemma, are already ahead (when not self-handling then there is no future, then the right time for a mature good death has come, not premature nor postmature - say goodbye to Alexandria that is leaving, said Cavafy). The legal system, captive of fear rather than anchored in science, distorts the practice of medicine from evidence-based towards defensive. The social oscillation between euthanasia and dysthanasia through the centuries needs recourse to the theory of oscillations in order to rediscover the edge of the cut yarn for painless, unashamed, peaceful (and not torturous) end of our material Ego. If everyone will decide on the “when” of their own death (when should I die; WSID), the problem would be automatically solved; especially doctors, who should suffer less than others from the bias “I don’t know that I don’t know” of what are we talking about. Notifying their decision by means of a written will would help relatives, doctors and himself for a painless, unashamed and peaceful end of their life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If at any time hereafter I can’t participate in decisions about myself (God drives mad those he would destroy) and/or I can’t look after myself for any reason for a maximum of six months (or less, if two independent doctors agree that currently there are no evidence-based serious probabilities that I will be able to look after myself), then there is no future for me, my time to die with dignity has come, and my destiny should be allowed to recycle my body. No any medical intervention for prolonging the duration of my life with negative quality should be undertaken. The first next coma or any organ failure or any infection etc. should be allowed to recycle my body (“dust you are and to dust you will come back”; “it is impossible to avoid your destiny”). This is my mandate to whom will then have my care. My mandate must override any contrary opinion or legal regulation. Any violation of it is a criminally punishable infringement of the supremacy of my autonomy, and my children are ordered to prosecute those responsible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]