Groups of people, from street gangs to nations, may use their group identity to express their fear of being destroyed by attacking and destroying others Is war perhaps nothing else but a need to face death, to conquer and master it, to come out of it alive; a peculiar form of denial of our own mortality? One of our patients dying of leukaemia said in utter disbelief: "It is impossible for me to die now. It cannot be Gods will, since he let me survive when I was hit by bullets just a few feet away during world War II Another woman expressed her shock and sense of incredulity when she described the"unfair death of a young man who was on leave from Vietnam and met his death in a car accident, as if his survival on the battlefield was supposed to have guaranteed immunity from death back home a chance for peace may thus be found in studying the attitudes toward death in the leaders of the nations, in those who make the final decisions of war and peace between nations. If all of us would make an all-out effort to contemplate our own death, to deal with our anxieties surrounding the concept of our death, and to help others familiarize themselves with these thoughts, perhaps there could be less destructiveness around us News agencies may be able to contribute their share in helping people face the reality of death by avoiding such depersonalized terms as the"solution of the Jewish question"to tell of the murder of millions of men, women, and children; or to use a more recent issue, the recovery of a hill in Vietnam through elimination of a machine gun nest and heavy loss of VC could be described in terms of human tragedies and loss of human beings on both sides. There are so many examples in all newspapers and other news media that it is unnecessary to add more here In summary, then, I think that with rapid technical advancement and new scientific achievements men have been able to develop not only new skills but also new weapons of mass destruction which increase the fear of a violent, catastrophic death. Man has to defend himself psychologically in many ways against this increased fear of death and increased inability to foresee and protect himself against it. Psychologically he can deny the reality of his own death for a while. Since in our unconscious we cannot perceive our own death and do believe in our own immortality, but can conceive our neighbor's death, news of numbers of people killed in battle, in wars, on the highways only support our unconscious belief in our own immortality and allow us-in the privacy and secrecy of our unconscious mind-to rejoice that it is"the next guy, not me If denial is no longer possible, we can attempt to master death by challenging it. If we can drive the highways at rapid speed, if we can come back home from Vietnam, we must indeed feel immune to death. We have killed ten times the number of enemies compared to our own losses-we hear on the news almost daily. Is this our wishful thinking, our projection of our infantile wish for omnipotence and immortality? If a whole nation, a whole society suffers from such a fear and denial of death, it has to use defenses which can only be destructive. Wars, riots, and increasing numbers of murders and other crimes may be indicators of our decreasing ability to face death with acceptance and dignity. Perhaps we have to come back to the individual human being and start from scratch, to attempt to conceive our own death and learn to face this tragic but inevitable happening with less irrationality and fear What role has religion played in these changing times? In the old days more people seemed to believe in God unquestionably; they believed in a hereafter, which was to relieve people of their
Groups of people, from street gangs to nations, may use their group identity to express their fear of being destroyed by attacking and destroying others. Is war perhaps nothing else but a need to face death, to conquer and master it, to come out of it alive; a peculiar form of denial of our own mortality? One of our patients dying of leukaemia said in utter disbelief: "It is impossible for me to die now. It cannot be God's will, since he let me survive when I was hit by bullets just a few feet away during World War II." Another woman expressed her shock and sense of incredulity when she described the "unfair death" of a young man who was on leave from Vietnam and met his death in a car accident, as if his survival on the battlefield was supposed to have guaranteed immunity from death back home. A chance for peace may thus be found in studying the attitudes toward death in the leaders of the nations, in those who make the final decisions of war and peace between nations. If all of us would make an all-out effort to contemplate our own death, to deal with our anxieties surrounding the concept of our death, and to help others familiarize themselves with these thoughts, perhaps there could be less destructiveness around us. News agencies may be able to contribute their share in helping people face the reality of death by avoiding such depersonalized terms as the "solution of the Jewish question" to tell of the murder of millions of men, women, and children; or to use a more recent issue, the recovery of a hill in Vietnam through elimination of a machine gun nest and heavy loss of VC could be described in terms of human tragedies and loss of human beings on both sides. There are so many examples in all newspapers and other news media that it is unnecessary to add more here. In summary, then, I think that with rapid technical advancement and new scientific achievements men have been able to develop not only new skills but also new weapons of mass destruction which increase the fear of a violent, catastrophic death. Man has to defend himself psychologically in many ways against this increased fear of death and increased inability to foresee and protect himself against it. Psychologically he can deny the reality of his own death for a while. Since in our unconscious we cannot perceive our own death and do believe in our own immortality, but can conceive our neighbor's death, news of numbers of people killed in battle, in wars, on the highways only support our unconscious belief in our own immortality and allow us-in the privacy and secrecy of our unconscious mind-to rejoice that it is "the next guy, not me." If denial is no longer possible, we can attempt to master death by challenging it. If we can drive the highways at rapid speed, if we can come back home from Vietnam, we must indeed feel immune to death. We have killed ten times the number of enemies compared to our own losses-we hear on the news almost daily. Is this our wishful thinking, our projection of our infantile wish for omnipotence and immortality? If a whole nation, a whole society suffers from such a fear and denial of death, it has to use defenses which can only be destructive. Wars, riots, and increasing numbers of murders and other crimes may be indicators of our decreasing ability to face death with acceptance and dignity. Perhaps we have to come back to the individual human being and start from scratch, to attempt to conceive our own death and learn to face this tragic but inevitable happening with less irrationality and fear. What role has religion played in these changing times? In the old days more people seemed to believe in God unquestionably; they believed in a hereafter, which was to relieve people of their
suffering and their pain. There was a reward in heaven, and if we had suffered much here on earth we would be rewarded after death depending on the courage and grace, patience and dignity with which we had carried our burden. Suffering was more common as childbirth was a more natural long and painful event- it the mother was awake when the child was born. There was purpose and future reward in the suffering. Now we sedate !r others, try to avoid pain and agony we may even induce labor t: have a birth occur on a relative's birthday or to avoid interference with another important event. Many mothers only wake up hours after the babies are born, too drugged and sleepy to rejoice the birth of their children. There is not much sense in suffering since drugs can be given for pain, itching, and other discomforts. The belief has long died that suffering here on earth will be rewarded in heaven. Suffering has lost its meaning But with this change, also, fewer people really believe in life after death, in itself perhaps a denial of our mortality. Well, if we cannot anticipate life after death, then we have to consider death. If we are no longer rewarded in heaven for our suffering, then suffering becomes purposeless in itself. If we take part in church activities in order to socialize or to go to a dance, then we are deprived of the church's former purpose, namely, to give hope, a purpose in tragedies here on earth, and an attempt to understand and bring meaning to otherwise unacceptable painful occurrences in our life Paradoxical as it may sound while society has contributed to our denial of death, religion has lost many of its believers in a life after death, i. e, immortality, and thus has decreased the denial of death in that respect. In terms of the patient, this has been a poor exchange. While the religious denial, i.e., the belief in the meaning of suffering here on earth and reward in heaven after death has offered hope and purpose, the denial of society has given neither hope nor purpose but has only increased our anxiety and contributed to our destructiveness and aggressiveness-to kill in order to avoid the reality and facing of our own death A look into the future shows us a society in which more and more people are"kept alive"both with machines replacing vital organs and computers checking from time to time to see if some additional physiologic functionings have to b e replaced by electronic equipment. Centers may be established in increasing numbers where all the technical data is collected and where a light may flash up when a patient expires in order to stop the equipment automatically Other centers may enjoy more and more popularity where the deceased are quickly deep-frozen to be placed in a special building of low temperature, awaiting the day when science and technology have advanced enough to defrost them, to return them to life and back into society, which may be so frighteningly overpopulated that special committees may be needed to decide how many can be defrosted, just as there are committees now to decide who shall be the recipient of an available organ and who shall die It may sound all very horrible and incredible. The sad truth, however, is that all this is happening already. There is no law in this country that prevents business-minded people from making money out of the fear of death, that denies opportunists the right to advertise and sell at high cost a promise for possible life after years of deep-freeze. These organizations exist already, and while we may laugh at people who ask whether a widow of a deep frozen person is entitled to accept social security or to remarry, the questions are all too serious to
suffering and their pain. There was a reward in heaven, and if we had suffered much here on earth we would be rewarded after death depending on the courage and grace, patience and dignity with which we had carried our burden. Suffering was more common as childbirth was a more natural, long and painful event'-:it the mother was awake when the child was born. There was purpose and future reward in the suffering. Now we sedate !r others, try to avoid pain and agony; we may even induce labor t:? have a birth occur on a relative's birthday or to avoid interference with another important event. Many mothers only wake up hours after the babies are born, too drugged and sleepy to rejoice the birth of their children. There is not much sense in suffering since drugs can be given for pain, itching, and other discomforts. The belief has long died that suffering here on earth will be rewarded in heaven. Suffering has lost its meaning. But with this change, also, fewer people really believe in life after death, in itself perhaps a denial of our mortality. Well, if we cannot anticipate life after death, then we have to consider death. If we are no longer rewarded in heaven for our suffering, then suffering becomes purposeless in itself. If we take part in church activities in order to socialize or to go to a dance, then we are deprived of the church's former purpose, namely, to give hope, a purpose in tragedies here on earth, and an attempt to understand and bring meaning to otherwise unacceptable painful occurrences in our life. Paradoxical as it may sound, while society has contributed to our denial of death, religion has lost many of its believers in a life after death, i.e., immortality, and thus has decreased the denial of death in that respect. In terms of the patient, this has been a poor exchange. While the religious denial, i.e., the belief in the meaning of suffering here on earth and reward in heaven after death, has offered hope and purpose, the denial of society has given neither hope nor purpose but has only increased our anxiety and contributed to our destructiveness and aggressiveness-to kill in order to avoid the reality and facing of our own death. A look into the future shows us a society in which more and more people are "kept alive" both with machines replacing vital organs and computers checking from time to time to see if some additional physiologic functioning's have to b e replaced by electronic equipment. Centers may be established in increasing numbers where all the technical data is collected and where a light may flash up when a patient expires in order to stop the equipment automatically. Other centers may enjoy more and more popularity where the deceased are quickly deep-frozen to be placed in a special building of low temperature, awaiting the day when science and technology have advanced enough to defrost them, to return them to life and back into society, which may be so frighteningly overpopulated that special committees may be needed to decide how many can be defrosted, just as there are committees now to decide who shall be the recipient of an available organ and who shall die. It may sound all very horrible and incredible. The sad truth, however, is that all this is happening already. There is no law in this country that prevents business-minded people from making money out of the fear of death, that denies opportunists the right to advertise and sell at high cost a promise for possible life after years of deep-freeze. These organizations exist already, and while we may laugh at people who ask whether a widow of a deep frozen person is entitled to accept social security or to remarry, the questions are all too serious to
be ignored. They actually show the fantastic degrees of denial that some people require in order to avoid facing death as a reality, and it seems time that people of all professions and religious backgrounds put their heads together before our society becomes so petrified that it has to destroy itself Now that we have taken a look into the past with man s ability to face death with equanimity and a somewhat frightening glimpse into the future, let us come back to the present and ask ourselves very seriously what we as individuals can do about all this. It is clear that we cannot avoid the trend toward increasing numbers altogether. We live in a society of the mass man rather than the individual man. The classes in the medical schools will get bigger, whether we like it or not. The number of cars on the highways will increase. The number of people being kept alive will increase, if we consider only the advancement in cardiology and cardiac surgery Also, we cannot go back in time. We cannot afford every child the learning experience of a simple life on a farm with its closeness to nature, the experience of birth and death in the natural surrounding of the child. Men of the churches may not even be successful in bringing many more people back to the belief in a life after death which would make dying more rewarding though through a form of denial of mortality in a sense We cannot deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction nor can we go back in any way or sense in time. Science and technology will enable us to replace more vital organs, and the responsibility of questions concerning life and death, donors and recipients will increase manifoldly Legal, moral, ethical, and psychological problems will be posed to the present and future generation which will decide questions of life and death in ever increasing numbers until these decisions, too, will probably be made by computers (16) Though every man will attempt in his own way to postpone such questions and issues until he is forced to face them, he will only be able to change things if he can start to conceive of his own death. This cannot be done on a mass level. This cannot be done by computers. This has to be done by every human being alone. Each one of us has the need to avoid this issue, yet each one of us has to face it sooner or later. If all of us could make a start by contemplating the possibility of our own personal death, we may effect many things, most important of all the welfare of our patients, our families, and finally perhaps our nation. If we could teach our students the value of science and technology simultaneously with the art and science of inter-human relationships, of human and total patient-care, it would be real progress. If science and technology are not to be misused to increase destructiveness, prolonging life rather than making it more human, if they could go hand in hand with freeing more time rather than less for individual person-to-person contacts, then we could really speak of a great society Finally, we may achieve peace-our own inner peace as well as peace between nations-by facing and accepting the reality of our own death An example of combined medical, scientific achievement and humanity is given in the following case of mr
be ignored. They actually show the fantastic degrees of denial that some people require in order to avoid facing death as a reality, and it seems time that people of all professions and religious backgrounds put their heads together before our society becomes so petrified that it has to destroy itself. Now that we have taken a look into the past with man's ability to face death with equanimity and a somewhat frightening glimpse into the future, let us come back to the present and ask ourselves very seriously what we as individuals can do about all this. It is clear that we cannot avoid the trend toward increasing numbers altogether. We live in a society of the mass man rather than the individual man. The classes in the medical schools will get bigger, whether we like it or not. The number of cars on the highways will increase. The number of people being kept alive will increase, if we consider only the advancement in cardiology and cardiac surgery. Also, we cannot go back in time. We cannot afford every child the learning experience of a simple life on a farm with its closeness to nature, the experience of birth and death in the natural surrounding of the child. Men of the churches may not even be successful in bringing many more people back to the belief in a life after death which would make dying more rewarding though through a form of denial of mortality in a sense. We cannot deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction nor can we go back in any way or sense in time. Science and technology will enable us to replace more vital organs, and the responsibility of questions concerning life and death, donors and recipients will increase manifoldly. Legal, moral, ethical, and psychological problems will be posed to the present and future generation which will decide questions of life and death in ever increasing numbers until these decisions, too, will probably be made by computers. (16) Though every man will attempt in his own way to postpone such questions and issues until he is forced to face them, he will only be able to change things if he can start to conceive of his own death. This cannot be done on a mass level. This cannot be done by computers. This has to be done by every human being alone. Each one of us has the need to avoid this issue, yet each one of us has to face it sooner or later. If all of us could make a start by contemplating the possibility of our own personal death, we may effect many things, most important of all the welfare of our patients, our families, and finally perhaps our nation. If we could teach our students the value of science and technology simultaneously with the art and science of inter-human relationships, of human and total patient-care, it would be real progress. If science and technology are not to be misused to increase destructiveness, prolonging life rather than making it more human, if they could go hand in hand with freeing more time rather than less for individual person-to-person contacts, then we could really speak of a great society. Finally, we may achieve peace-our own inner peace as well as peace between nations-by facing and accepting the reality of our own death. An example of combined medical, scientific achievement and humanity is given in the following case of Mr. P.:
Mr. P. was a fifty-one-year-old patient who was hospitalized with rapidly progressing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with bulbar involvement. He was unable to breathe without a respirator, had difficulties coughing up any sputum, and developed pneumonia and an infection at the site of hi tracheostomy. Because of the latter he was also unable to speak thus he would lie in bed, listening to the frightening sound of the respirator, unable to communicate to anybody his needs, thoughts, and feelings. We might have never called on this patient had it not been for one of the physicians who had the courage to ask for help for himself. One Friday evening he visited us and asked simply for some support, not for the patient primarily but for himself. While we sat and listened to him, we heard an account of feelings that are not often spoken about. The doctor was assigned to this patient on admission and was obviously impressed by this man's suffering. His patient was relatively young and had a neurological disorder which required immense medical attention and nursing care in order to extend his life for a short while only. The patient's wife had multiple sclerosis and had been paralyzed in all limbs for the past three years. The patient hoped to die during this admission as it was inconceivable for him to have two paralyzed people at home, each watching the other without the ability to care for the other This double tragedy resulted in the physicians anxiety and in his overly vigorous efforts to save this man 's life"no matter in what condition. The doctor was quite aware that this was contrary to the patient's wishes. His efforts continued successfully even after a coronary occlusion which complicated the picture. He fought it as successfully as he fought the pneumonia and infections When the patient began to recover from all the complications, the question arose -"What now? He could live only can the respirator with twenty-four-hour nursing care, unable to talk or move a finger, alive intellectually and fully aware of his predicament but otherwise unable to function. The doctor picked up implicit criticism of his attempts to save this man. He also elicited the patient's anger and frustration at him. What vas he supposed to do? Besides, it was too late to change maters He had wished to do his best as a physician to prolong life and now that he had succeeded, he elicited nothing but criticism(real or unreal)and anger from the patient We decided to attempt to solve the conflict in the patient's presence since he was an important part of it. The patient looked interested when we told him of the reason for our visit 'le was obviously satisfied that we had included him, thus regarding and treating him as a person in spite of his inability to communicate. In introducing the problem I asked him to nod his head or to give us another signal if he did not want to disuss the matter. His eyes spoke more than words. He obviously struggled to say more and we were looking for means of allowing him to take his part The physician, relieved by sharing his burden, became quite inventive and deflated the respirator tube for a few minutes at a time which allowed the patient to speak a few words while exhaling. A flood of feelings were expressed n these interviews. He emphasized that he was not afraid to die but was afraid to live. He also empathized with the physician but demanded of him"to help me live now that you so vigorously tried to pull me through. The patient smiled and the physician smiled There was a great relief of tension in the air when the two were able to talk to each other. I rephrased the doctor's conflicts (P18)
Mr. P. was a fifty-one-year-old patient who was hospitalized with rapidly progressing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with bulbar involvement. He was unable to breathe without a respirator, had difficulties coughing up any sputum, and developed pneumonia and an infection at the site of his tracheostomy. Because of the latter he was also unable to speak; thus he would lie in bed, listening to the frightening sound of the respirator, unable to communicate to anybody his needs, thoughts, and feelings. We might have never called on this patient had it not been for one of the physicians who had the courage to ask for help for himself. One Friday evening he visited us and asked simply for some support, not for the patient primarily but for himself. While we sat and listened to him, we heard an account of feelings that are not often spoken about. The doctor was assigned to this patient on admission and was obviously impressed by this man's suffering. His patient was relatively young and had a neurological disorder which required immense medical attention and nursing care in order to extend his life for a short while only. The patient's wife had multiple sclerosis and had been paralyzed in all limbs for the past three years. The patient hoped to die during this admission as it was inconceivable for him to have two paralyzed people at home, each watching the other without the ability to care for the other. This double tragedy resulted in the physician's anxiety and in his overly vigorous efforts to save this man's life "no matter in what condition." The doctor was quite aware that this was contrary to the patient's wishes. His efforts continued successfully even after a coronary occlusion which complicated the picture. He fought it as successfully as he fought the pneumonia and infections. When the patient began to recover from all the complications, the question arose-"What now?" He could live only can the respirator with twenty-four-hour nursing care, unable to talk or move a finger, alive intellectually and fully aware of his predicament but otherwise unable to function. The doctor picked up implicit criticism of his attempts to save this man. He also elicited the patient's anger and frustration at him. What .vas he supposed to do? Besides, it was too late to change maters. He had wished to do his best as a physician to prolong life and now that he had succeeded, he elicited nothing but criticism (real or unreal) and anger from the patient. We decided to attempt to solve the conflict in the patient's presence since he was an important part of it. The patient looked interested when we told him of the reason for our visit. 'Ie was obviously satisfied that we had included him, thus regarding and treating him as a person in spite of his inability to communicate. In introducing the problem I asked him to nod his head or to give us another signal if he did not want to disuss the matter. His eyes spoke more than words. He obviously struggled to say more and we were looking for means of allowing him to take his part. The physician, relieved by sharing his burden, became quite inventive and deflated the respirator tube for a few minutes at a time which allowed the patient to speak a few words while exhaling. A flood of feelings were expressed n these interviews. He emphasized that he was not afraid to die, but was afraid to live. He also empathized with the physician but demanded of him "to help me live now that you so vigorously tried to pull me through." The patient smiled and the physician smiled. There was a great relief of tension in the air when the two were able to talk to each other. I rephrased the doctor's conflicts (P18)
with which the patient sympathized. I asked him how we could be of the most help to him now. He described his increasing panic when he was unable to communicate by speaking, writing, or other means. He was grateful for those few minutes of joint effort and communication which made the next weeks much less painful. At a later session I observed with pleasure how the patient even considered a possible discharge and planned on a transfer to the West Coast " if I can get the respirator and the nursing care there This example perhaps best shows the predicament that many young physicians find themselves in They learn to prolong life but get little training or discussion in the definition of "life This patient regarded himself appropriately as"dead up to my head, "the tragedy being that he was intellectually fully aware of his position and unable to move a single finger. When the tube pressured and hurt him. he was unable to tell it to the nurse. who was with him around the clock but was unable to learn to communicate. We often take for granted that "there is nothing one can do"and focus oar nterests on the equipment rather than on the facial expressions of the patient, which can tell us more important things than the most efficient machine. When the patient had an itch, he was unable to move or rub or blow and became preoccupied with this inability until it took on panic proportions which drove him"near insanity. The introduction of this regular five-minute session made the patient calm and better able to tolerate his discomforts This relieved the physician of his conflicts and insured him of a better relationship without guilt or pity. Once he saw how much ease and comfort such direct explicit dialogues can provide, he continued them on his own, having used us merely as a kind of catalyst to get the communication going I feel strongly that this should be the case. I do not feel it beneficial that a psychiatrist be called each time a patient-doctor relationship is in danger or a physician is unable or unwilling to discuss important issues with his patient. I found it courageous and a sign of great maturity on the part of this young doctor to acknowledge his limits and his conflicts and seek help rather than to avoid the issue and the patient. Our goals should not be to have specialists for dying patients but to train our hospital personnel to feel comfortable in facing turmoil and conflict when he is faced with such tragedies the next time. he will attempt to be o such difficulties and to seek solutions. I am confident that this young physician will have much les physician and prolong life but also consider the patient's needs and discuss them frankly with him This patient, who was still a person, was only unable to bear to live because he was unable to make use of the faculties that he had left. With combined efforts many of these faculties can be used if we are not frightened away by the mere sight of such a helpless, suffering individual. Perhaps what I am saying is that we can help them die by trying to help them live, rather than vegetate in an inhuman manner The Beginning of an Interdisciplinary Seminar on Death and Dying In the fall of 1965 four theology students of the Chicago Theological Seminary approached me for assistance in a research project they had chosen. Their class was to write a paper on"crisis in human life, and the four students considered death as the biggest crisis people had to face. Then the natural question arose: How do you do research on dying, when the data is so impossible to get? When you cannot verify your data and cannot set up experiments? We met for a while and decided
with which the patient sympathized. I asked him how we could be of the most help to him now. He described his increasing panic when he was unable to communicate by speaking, writing, or other means. He was grateful for those few minutes of joint effort and communication which made the next weeks much less painful. At a later session I observed with pleasure how the patient even considered a possible discharge and planned on a transfer to the West Coast "if I can get the respirator and the nursing care there." This example perhaps best shows the predicament that many young physicians find themselves in. They learn to prolong life but get little training or discussion in the definition of "life." This patient regarded himself appropriately as "dead up to my head," the tragedy being that he was intellectually fully aware of his position and unable to move a single finger. When the tube pressured and hurt him, he was unable to tell it to the nurse, who was with him around the clock but was unable to learn to communicate. We often take for granted that "there is nothing one can do" and focus oar interests on the equipment rather than on the facial expressions of the patient, which can tell us more important things than the most efficient machine. When the patient had an itch, he was unable to move or rub or blow and became preoccupied with this inability until it took on panic proportions which drove him "near insanity." The introduction of this regular five-minute session made the patient calm and better able to tolerate his discomforts. This relieved the physician of his conflicts and insured him of a better relationship without guilt or pity. Once he saw how much ease and comfort such direct explicit dialogues can provide, he continued them on his own, having used us merely as a kind of catalyst to get the communication going. I feel strongly that this should be the case. I do not feel it beneficial that a psychiatrist be called each time a patient-doctor relationship is in danger or a physician is unable or unwilling to discuss important issues with his patient. I found it courageous and a sign of great maturity on the part of this young doctor to acknowledge his limits and his conflicts and seek help rather than to avoid the issue and the patient. Our goals should not be to have specialists for dying patients but to train our hospital personnel to feel comfortable in facing such difficulties and to seek solutions. I am confident that this young physician will have much less turmoil and conflict when he is faced with such tragedies the next time. He will attempt to be a physician and prolong life but also consider the patient's needs and' discuss them frankly with him. This patient, who was still a person, was only unable to bear to live because he was unable to make use of the faculties that he had left. With combined efforts many of these faculties can be used if we are not frightened away by the mere sight of such a helpless, suffering individual. Perhaps what I am saying is that we can help them die by trying to help them live, rather than vegetate in an inhuman manner. The Beginning of an Interdisciplinary Seminar on Death and Dying In the fall of 1965 four theology students of the Chicago Theological Seminary approached me for assistance in a research project they had chosen. Their class was to write a paper on "crisis in human life," and the four students considered death as the biggest crisis people had to face. Then the natural question arose: How do you do research on dying, when the data is so impossible to get? When you cannot verify your data and cannot set up experiments? We met for a while and decided