IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v172y2017icp72-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common or multiple futures for end of life care around the world? Ideas from the ‘waiting room of history’

Author

Listed:
  • Zaman, Shahaduz
  • Inbadas, Hamilton
  • Whitelaw, Alexander
  • Clark, David

Abstract

Around the world there is growing interest in the manner in which care is delivered to people at the end of life. However, there is little unanimity on what constitutes a ‘good death’ and the appropriate societal responses to the issue of delivering culturally relevant and sustainable forms of end of life care in different settings are not subjects of broad agreement. In this critical conceptual paper we focus on the emerging narratives of global palliative care and offer an assessment of their implications. We relate this to calls to improve end of life care across jurisdictions and settings, attempts to map and grade the development of palliative care provision, and to the emergence of a widely recognised global ‘quality of death index’. We consider an alternative approach to framing this debate, drawn from a subaltern and post-colonial studies perspective and suggest that adopting a truly global perspective will require acceptance of the plurality of past and present local problems and issues relating to end of life care, as well as the plural possibilities of how they might be overcome. In that context, we would not aim to universalise or privilege one particular global future for end of life care. Instead of homogenising end of life interventions, we seek to be open to multiple futures for the care of the dying.

Suggested Citation

  • Zaman, Shahaduz & Inbadas, Hamilton & Whitelaw, Alexander & Clark, David, 2017. "Common or multiple futures for end of life care around the world? Ideas from the ‘waiting room of history’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 72-79.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:172:y:2017:i:c:p:72-79
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616306219
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paolo Rossi & Matteo Crippa & Gianlorenzo Scaccabarozzi, 2021. "The Relationship between Practitioners and Caregivers during a Treatment of Palliative Care: A Grounded Theory of a Challenging Collaborative Process," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Sudbury-Riley, Lynn & Hunter-Jones, Philippa, 2021. "Facilitating inter-professional integration in palliative care: A service ecosystem perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    3. Kisook Kim & Seung Gyeong Jang & Ki-Seong Lee, 2021. "A Network Analysis of Research Topics and Trends in End-of-Life Care and Nursing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Lang, Alexander, 2020. "The good death and the institutionalisation of dying: An interpretive analysis of the Austrian discourse," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    5. Whitelaw, Sandy & Bell, Anthony & Clark, David, 2022. "The expression of ‘policy’ in palliative care: A critical review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(9), pages 889-898.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:172:y:2017:i:c:p:72-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.