↓ Skip to main content

An explanation and analysis of how world religions formulate their ethical decisions on withdrawing treatment and determining death

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 218)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An explanation and analysis of how world religions formulate their ethical decisions on withdrawing treatment and determining death
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13010-015-0025-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan M Setta, Sam D Shemie

Abstract

This paper explores definitions of death from the perspectives of several world and indigenous religions, with practical application for health care providers in relation to end of life decisions and organ and tissue donation after death. It provides background material on several traditions and explains how different religions derive their conclusions for end of life decisions from the ethical guidelines they proffer. Research took several forms beginning with a review of books and articles written by ethicists and observers of Bön, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous Traditions, Islam, Judaism, Shinto and Taoism. It then examined sources to which these authors referred in footnotes and bibliographies. In addition, material was gathered through searches of data bases in religious studies, general humanities, social sciences and medicine along with web-based key word searches for current policies in various traditions. Religious traditions provide their adherents with explanations for the meaning and purpose of life and include ethical analysis for the situations in which their followers find themselves. This paper aims to increase cultural competency in practitioners by demonstrating the reasoning process religions use to determine what they believe to be the correct decision in the face of death. Patterns emerge in the comparative study of religious perspectives on death. Western traditions show their rootedness in Judaism in their understanding of the human individual as a finite, singular creation. Although the many branches of Western religions do not agree on precisely how to determine death, they are all able to locate a moment of death in the body. In Eastern traditions personhood is not defined in physical terms. From prescribing the location of death, to resisting medical intervention and definitions of death, Eastern religions, in their many forms, incorporate the beliefs and practices that preceded them. Adding to the complexity for these traditions is the idea that death is a process that continues after the body has met most empirical criteria for determining death. For Hinduism and Buddhism, the cessation of heart, brain and lung function is the beginning of the process of dying-not the end.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 150 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Student > Master 21 14%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Other 9 6%
Other 36 23%
Unknown 34 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Psychology 12 8%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 35 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,735,999
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#42
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,752
of 259,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 259,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.