Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Evidence that dying occurs as a natural, final event in the wholeness of human life is culturally, artistically, and scientifically persuasive. Very elderly patients eventually undergo a process of functional declines, progressive apathy, and loss of willingness to eat and drink that culminates in death, even in the absence of acute illness or severe chronic disease. Despite clinical resemblances to depression and dementia, aging itself and a loss of will to live are the most probable explanations for natural dying. Acceptance of the naturalness of dying, however, directly conflicts with the medicalization and legalization of death that characterizes modern society's treatment of dying elderly patients. We prefer instead to believe that dying results from disease and injury, which may yield to advances in medical technology. The progressive move of the dying out of the home and into acute and long-term care facilities suggests that medicalization may be an irreversible process. Viewing dying as an independent diagnosis in patients who are obviously undergoing terminal declines from aging and chronic diseases can facilitate communication about spiritual and palliative care needs, which tend to be neglected in the medicalized view of dying. Physicians and nurses may need to assume the role of medical stewardship to help prevent the overtreatment and overtesting of modern medicine's approach to the dying. The emotional burdens of caring for the dying elderly, however, must be addressed openly through collaborative work, institutional policies on limitation of treatment, and support building among physicians and other caregivers.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
McCue, J. D. (1995). The naturalness of dying. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520370081041
Vancouver
McCue JD. The naturalness of dying. JAMA. 1995. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520370081041. PMID: 7897788.
BibTeX
@article{mccue1995-7897788,
author = {McCue, J. D.},
title = {{The naturalness of dying}},
journal = {JAMA},
year = {1995},
doi = {10.1001/jama.1995.03520370081041},
pmid = {7897788},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520370081041}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We prefer instead to believe that dying results from disease and injury, which may yield to advances in medical technology.
- The progressive move of the dying out of the home and into acute and long-term care facilities suggests that medicalization may be an irreversible process.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a top-tier journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (JAMA) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1995 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 7897788) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “delirium”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.