{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04407894736842105, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010526315789473684, 'mean_word_length': 5.3112033195020745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The “good death”: An integrative literature review

Abstract Objective: The “good death” is a dynamic concept and has evolved over time to become a “revivalist” good death: a planned, peaceful, and dignified death, at home, surrounded by family members. As the “good death” continues to evolve, the key questions are: How do cultural perceptions of death and dying change? What are the forces that shape Western attitudes and beliefs around death and dying? And how does the “good death” discourse frame the dying experience in contemporary society? The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the underlying discourse in the literature on the “good death” in Western societies. Method: An integrative literature review of data from experimental and nonexperimental sources in PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and SocINDEX of 39 articles from 1992 to 2014. Results: Four main themes emerged from reviewing 39 articles on the “good death”: (1) the “good death” as control, (2) the wrong “good death,” (3) the threatened “good death,” and (4) the denial of dying. Significance of Results: Evolving in response to prominent social attitudes and values, the contemporary “good death” is a powerful, constraining discourse that limits spontaneity and encourages one way to die. Social, political, and demographic changes now threaten the stability of the “good death”; dying is framed as an increasingly negative or even unnecessary process, thus marginalizing the positive aspects of dying and rendering dying absent, invisible.