Tulsky, (2001) mentioned Cicely Saunders’ critique of modern medicine’s inadequate attention to the needs of dying patients, where the latter argued that he advances in biomedical technology to sustain life had outpaced medicine’s ethical understanding and clinical care of patients at the end of life. In this context clinicians such as Kubler-Ross, in addition, social scientists like Glaser and Strauss published rich qualitative descriptions of inductively derived theories of death and dying. (Tulsky, 2001)
Recent theories calculate a dying person’s progress by resolution of particular emotions versus association through changes in emotion. It thus here where Buckman recently projected a three-stage model based on the path of dying: One is facing the threat, followed by being ill and then acceptance. Buckman’s model puts forward a range of emotions possible within each stage and it has clear improvements over the Kubler-Ross stage theory, yet the model still espouses a mechanistic, purely psychological approach (Tulsky, 2001).
Glaser and Strauss, on the other hand, developed more fluid, process-oriented conceptualizations of the end of life, in response to concerns surrounding a “single common pathway”. The authors also became participant observers under a setting where they described four “contexts of awareness” surrounding the dying experience” This experience include closed awareness, suspicion awareness, mutual pretense awareness, and open awareness (Tulsky, 2001). Still a more recent theory came about, which Copp’s readiness-to-die theory.
The model focuses on the active nature of the nurse-dying patient relationship, termed “encountering,” and the dying person’s state of physical deterioration and personal acceptance of death. Workable under the theory’s four modes, Tulsky (2001) described these modes to include “person ready/body not ready; person ready/body ready; person not ready/body ready; and person not ready/body not ready, are hypothesized to determine, in part, the trajectory and quality of dying.
” (Tulsky, 2001) 3) Why are these models all developed and derived from Western society? The models of grief and bereavement are all developed and derived from the Western society because there is basis to say that civilization started from the west. The people of the Western Society went first to the East than the other way around. This could be proven in the spread of Christianity in the East as carried on by people of the West particularly the Spaniards.
As proof of this it could be observed in the funeral in East Asia that the wearing of white which is symbolic of death was modified by practice of Western culture in wearing black and dark-colored which has become acceptable for mourners to wear (Wikipedia, ,2007a). 4) Do Eastern cultures follow certain models or patterns of grief? The basis of these. Acceptance, which is the last stage of the grief, models for Asians this would seem to come faster than those from the west do. This does not however mean that Asians or people from the eastern culture will not under go the other stages of the models.
As human beings and in the evidence to the contrary the rule that denial comes first before acceptance is still more prevalent among Asians. Support and Life priorities A. Family values, support and integrated societies 1) Support networks, their differences between cultures, formal and informal. In one compares the western culture with the western culture, the first one would value individualism while the eastern culture with its roots in Confucianism would value the family. In terms, therefore of grief models the eastern culture is believed to adjust easier than the west culture.