ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
Good death: A critical essay on the concept in global palliative and end of life care.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of a 'good death' has long been a subject of philosophical, clinical, and cultural debate. Despite its universal relevance and importance, no consensus exists among scholars or practitioners regarding its definition. This critical essay interrogates the potential value or tyranny of the term, drawing on contemporary literature and insights from a global multidisciplinary webinar. The discussion elucidates tensions between palliative care practices and diverse cultural understandings of dying, revealing how normative assumptions may marginalise individual preferences and communal experiences. Through a synthesis of webinar contributions, the essay explores three central tensions: the dichotomy of good versus bad death, varied perspectives on suffering, and choice and control. Each panellist's perspective illuminates the complexities inherent in defining or realising a good death. The synthesis highlights how prescriptive interpretations may stigmatise and undermine personal choices and operate oblivious to the structural determinants that influence dying experiences. The essay concludes with three actionable recommendations aimed at fostering inclusive discourse and practice: (1) embracing pluralism in death narratives, (2) addressing systemic inequities in end-of-life care, and (3) expanding support for non-clinical dying environments. Ultimately, this work advocates for a reframing of the good death paradigm, one that prioritises diversity and contextual sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.