Defining a Good Death: A deliberative democratic view

Many attempts to define a good death have been recorded in the academic literature. In most of these attempts, the methods used have been surveys, interviews, and focus groups. These methods have yielded important information, but they have failed to provide an opportunity for public deliberation, whereby people engage collectively with an issue, consider it from all sides, and struggle to understand it. We believe that a well-orchestrated public deliberation could contribute to defining a good death. We gathered data from four deliberative forums implemented in Finland in November 2013. The results paint a picture that differs from those painted by the previous research, which focused mainly on individual and idealized views of a good death. Our findings have brought to light the messy reality of a good death. Deliberation elicited the concern that society could not provide a good death for all and in the process highlighted the lack of proper palliative care and the dominant role of healthcare professionals in defining a good death. Participants also came to terms with the inherent complexity of dying well and gained a better understanding of the challenges related to providing a good death via euthanasia. Their perspectives broadened, proving that defining a good death is a dynamic process rather than a static one.