5/2/2007 Vol. 4, No. 7

Professional Practice

Advocacy

Joan Olson on the real questions people are asking

Focusing on What is Truly Important

Mrs. J is dying and her daughters sit beside her bed, chanting their prayers in Farsi. As they pray, I can almost see the minarets towering over the city in their native Iran and feel the heat of the noonday sun. They are Baha’i, and I have been invited to walk this journey with them as the chaplain on their hospice team.

Later in the week I visit Mr. V, a Hmong gentleman whose health has improved so much that he’ll probably ‘graduate’from our hospice program. He and his wife came to America as refugees after the Vietnam War. Mr. V fought in General Vang Pao’s army, assisting the United States in their attempt to ward off the North Vietnamese in Laos. Mr. V and his wife are Christians, having left behind the traditional animistic beliefs of their ancestors when they left Laos. Mrs. V gets tears in her eyes when she recounts the story of how they learned about God and Jesus and how their faith has grown since coming to the United States. Still, every once in a while they whisper about the evil spirits that occasionally visit them, disrupting their everyday lives. We pray for peace and safety, asking for God’s spirit to bring them comfort and strength to meet the challenges that they face.

As a hospice chaplain, I have the honor of hearing many people tell their stories. It is central to what I do. Over the years, I have learned that when the end of life is near, the most important thing people do is tell their story. People desperately want to know that their life has been significant. No matter who they are, no matter what culture they come from, their questions are the same: “Who am I?”“What has my life been about?”“What will my loved ones remember about me?”and “What’s next after this life?”

I remember a woman who lived in a public housing high-rise. The first time I met her, we talked about her life and her faith. She knew her disease was terminal and she said she wasn’t afraid of anything. I asked her if she had an image of what the next life might be like. “Oh yes,”she sighed. “Heaven is a beautiful place where there’s sunshine and flowers and if you need a place to live, someone will build a house for you.”For this woman, who had never had very much to call her own, simply having a house was heaven.

The religious conversation in this country has become so polarized and so damaging that I sometimes wonder if we will ever be able to hear the real questions that people are asking. When one is faced with the end of life, they’re not thinking about gay marriage, tax cuts for the wealthy or the morality of abortion. Instead, they talk about their families, wondering how their loved ones will deal with their death. They tell the stories that mean the most to them. And they talk about how hard it is to say goodbye.

If only we who are not terminally ill could live like that, with the focus on what is truly important. Facing death, Mrs. J, Mr. V and the woman from the high-rise had nothing left to lose and nothing to protect, so they were free to tell the truth. And the truth is this –every life is precious, no matter who we are. Our journey at the end is the same. Our stories matter, our lives on this earth matter. The ones we leave behind will carry on and be changed because of who we were and how our lives intertwined. They will preserve our lives by telling our stories. Ultimately, I find that a very comforting thought.

Portions of this article appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune in the Faith and Values section in October, 2006.

Do you have thoughts about advocacy you’d like to share with your colleagues? Send an e-mail to info@PlainViews.org.

Education & Research

Mark LaRocca-Pitts, Ph.D., BCC on Who we are

The Chaplain’s Motive

Why do we do what we do? What motivates the chaplain? According to Kenneth Burke, renowned literary critic and author of numerous books on rhetoric, “any complete statement about motives will provide some kind of answer to these five questions: what was done (act), when or where it was done (scene), who did it (agent), how he [sic] did it (agency), and why (purpose).”[1] Furthermore, Burke contends, from these five questions or elements, an “‘essential’term, the ‘casual ancestor’of the lot”can be found from which one can deduce the other terms from it “as logical descendents.”[2] So, of these five elements, which one essentially determines or generates the others? What ultimately “moves”(Latin, mōtīves) the chaplain?

Much of our literature implies that the scene or context in which we work is determinative for understanding our motive. VandeCreek’s and Burton’s assertion that, “the professional chaplain does not displace local religious leaders, but fills the special requirements involved in intense medical environments,”[3] suggests that what we do, how we do it and why is largely a result of where we do it, i.e., “intense medical environments.”That is, our context moves or motivates us.[4] The first section of Holst’s book on hospital ministry is titled “Context and Identity,”[5] which further suggests that at least our identity (the Who) is somehow dependent on our medical context (the Where).

The Where of our work, i.e., the context or scene, significantly determines the Why, the How, and the What of the chaplain’s motive, but, I would argue, only secondarily. The real “casual ancestor”of the chaplain’s motive is not the Where, but the Who.[6] That is, the chaplain does not become a chaplain or function as a chaplain because of Where the chaplain is. Instead, Why we do What we do is ultimately because of Who we are.

Robert Kidd best illustrates the primacy of agent for understanding the chaplain’s motive as follows:

I re-learned that a chaplain is something I simply am. Put me to work in a Wal-Mart, I’ll wind up functioning as a chaplain. Put me to telephone solicitation and I’ll find a way to be a chaplain. Put me to delivering mail, I’ll be a chaplain to those I encounter on my route and in the post office. Professional chaplaincy is in my blood and in my heart. I have what many of you would describe as a calling.[7]

We as chaplains are Where we are, doing What we do, because of Who we are. It is from Who we are that our “spiritual sensitivity”flows,[8] and it is in our “Whoness”that our patients connect with us in what Martin Buber calls the “I-Thou”relationship. Once we are there –wherever “there”is (military, hospital, hospice, prison, business, etc.) –then certain actions (assessments, interventions, charting) that use certain agencies (presence, listening, prayer) all for a variety of purposes (restore, heal, communicate to team members) are utilized. But the role of the setting or context in determining various actions, agencies and purposes only secondarily influences the chaplain’s motive. The chaplain’s primary motivation comes from Who the chaplain is as an agent.

This aspect of the chaplain’s motive may seem like common sense. And so it should. Chaplaincy is, after all, a vocation and as such it begins with the person as agent. But in our quest to become fully integrated members of the clinical team with all the appropriate tools and with all the correct terminology, we often lose sight of this aspect of Who we are and its importance.[9] When we do this we shift from being active agents of change to being passive agencies at the mercy of our settings. There are aspects of Who we are as chaplains that may never fully fit in with the medical/clinical/scientific model and as we continue to negotiate and fine tune this “fit”we need to be aware if and when the desire to “fit”outweighs the integrity of Who we are.

[1] Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969), p. xv.

[2] Ibid., p. xxii. Space permitting, a more complex analysis would not reduce motive to a single element, but would instead examine the various relationships (Burke’s “ratios”) among the five elements. Burke labels this type of analysis as “pentadic analysis.”

[3] Larry VandeCreek and Laurel Burton, “A White Paper: Professional Chaplaincy: Its Role and Importance in Healthcare,”JPC 55, 1 (Spring 2001), p. 84; see also, James L. Gibbons & Sherry L. Miller, “An Image of Contemporary Hospital Chaplaincy,”JPC 43, 4 (Winter 1989), p. 360.

[4] Larry Austin, “Hospitals are Not Houses of Worship,”PlainViews vol. 1, no. 18 (10/20/2004), http://www.plainviews.org/AR/c/v1n18/er.html.

[5] Lawrence E. Holst, ed., Hospital Ministry: The Role of the Chaplain Today (New York: Crossroads, 1991).

[6] I would also argue this is the “causal ancestor”for all religious leaders and that differences based on where we practice, how we practice, what we practice and why are important and often critical, but secondary or tertiary. Thus, we must be careful of the manner in which we distinguish differences between local clergy and chaplains.

[7] Robert Kidd, Three Streams (Presidential Address, Albuquerque, NM, 2005). Published at http://www.professionalchaplains.org/uploadedFiles/pdf/president-address-2005.pdf.

[8] Noel Brown, “A Chaplaincy Letter From America,”Scottish Journal of Healthcare Chaplaincy, 2, 1 (1999), 16.

[9] Timothy E. Madison, “Can Chaplaincy Be Sold Without Selling Out?”CT 14, 2 (1998), 3-8.

Do you have thoughts about education & research you’d like to share with your colleagues? Send an e-mail to info@PlainViews.org.

Spiritual Development

Rev. Patricia Wright on the importance of brief encounters

“Haven’t You People Done Enough?”

My first meeting with M was not what I would call stellar. He practically threw me out of his room. After I had identified myself as a chaplain and asked if there was anything I could do for him, his response was, “Haven’t you people done enough?”Quickly realizing that now was not the time to visit with M, I excused myself but let him know of my availability should he change his mind about our services.

M was a young man, a war veteran, who had been diagnosed with leukemia. I knew he needed support. I also knew it would take time and effort to be able to provide that support. M was a patient in our hospital for several months. He and his girlfriend became familiar faces in the hall. Everyone knew about him, and knew about his moods. He tended to dismiss people from his presence quite often and with no regard to civility or politeness. He was blunt and no one ever wondered what he was thinking.

Over the course of several months I would briefly say hi to M on occasion. Once he was playing guitar in his room and I commented on the music. Once I saw him laying down a racetrack for electric cars and asked about it briefly. Once he was eating lunch in the hall as I was making rounds and we struck up a conversation. All very brief encounters, none were overtly religious, but there were comments on his priorities and his personality nonetheless. I usually had to remind him of who I was, and he always seemed to be surprised that I was the chaplain.

As M’s condition worsened, he and his family were expecting a miracle to save him. They had faith, but they never spoke to me about it. I heard all this from the nurses.

Finally, as the end drew near, M and his girlfriend decided they wanted to get married. M couldn’t leave the hospital. He was too sick. His girlfriend, who just happened to be a wedding planner, took matters into her own hands and started planning what needed to happen.

To my amazement, they asked me to perform the ceremony. I was honored.

It was the most sacred moment I have ever been a part of, leading this couple in their vows. There wasn’t a dry eye in the room. Of course along with all their friends and family were so many staff members from all over the hospital. It was amazing. Everyone knew how poignant a moment this was. I have never seen a happier groom, or more radiant bride.

Sadly, within two weeks M died. His new wife came to me and asked that I perform his funeral service. Again, I was honored. Before meeting this couple I had never performed a wedding or a funeral. I thought it was appropriate that the first time I presided at a funeral, it was for the same young man who had been the groom at the first wedding I conducted. We had come a very long way from “Haven’t you people done enough?”

Do you have thoughts about spiritual development you’d like to share with your colleagues? Send an e-mail of any length to info@PlainViews.org.

EthicsWalk

EthicsWalk addresses spiritual care as an ethical enterprise. It explores why relationships between spiritual care providers and those they serve need protection, and examines what that protection entails. PlainViews invites our readers to share their responses to each EthicsWalk column, which will be published in the following issue.

If you’d like to respond to EthicsWalk, please send a comment of no more than 100 words. You can use the e-form below (click on "hearing from you," link) or submit your commentary to the editors in the body of an e-mail (or as a Microsoft Word attachment) sent to Info@PlainViews.org. Please put the phrase “EthicsWalk” in your subject line.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Toxic Humor

“The Imus virus”,[1] an insidious social infection, is much in the news. Characterized by toxic humor, it infiltrates educational and religious institutions, health care facilities, and most work places, as well as the media, the last which the others blame for the virus’presence in their midst. The resistance, by otherwise sensible souls, to examination and inoculation of their own environments against infestation is an ethically perplexing aspect of the virus.

Humor, according to Webster’s, “implies an ability to perceive the ludicrous, the comical and the absurd in human life and to express these, usually without bitterness.”[2] The definition ought to give pause to anyone who assumes a routine role for humor in an educational program or work place. One person’s perception of “ludicrous”or “absurd”may be another person’s lived reality.

Shock jocks like Imus mine the proclivity for turning another’s demographic profile, social stratum, economic status or personal attributes into toxic humor. When people in positions of power or influence mistake degradation for comedy, the wound spreads wider than the immediate audience. Following Imus’characterization of the Rutgers women, a Brooklyn police sergeant reportedly used the same words during roll call.[3] No one goes to school or work with the expectation of being comedic fodder for rapper-imitators.

Most people appreciate good jokes, communal laughter, and times of shared bemusement at life’s quirks, but the class clown can morph easily into the office bully. Astute teachers and supervisors should be asking: what’s missing in this person’s life, what is he or she not receiving from this environment? And, when humor is toxic, it must be stopped.

To begin a dialogue about healthy humor, the following guideline is proposed. Please submit additions that clarify how we can engage education and work place humor delightfully rather than hurtfully.

A Rudimentary Guide to Work Place Humor

1) Like the person(s) to whom and about whom you are speaking well enough to know and care about their sensibilities.

2) If it’s not language you would use with your mother or child, don’t use it at work.

3) Direct irony only towards yourself or your own situation.

4) Never use sarcasm (intent and impact are often wounding).

5) Most spiritual care providers are neither rappers nor street folk. Don’t adopt the language or attitude of either in the work place.

6) Stories or “jokes”in which the subjects or objects are people of different racial, ethnic, religious, gender, or sexual orientation than you, are never appropriate in the work place, no matter how well you think you know the listener(s). Racist, sexist, ageist, and homophobic comments are never appropriate, clever, or funny anywhere.

7) Stories or “jokes”targeting physical or mental conditions are never appropriate anywhere.

8) Stories or “jokes”about patients or students are never appropriate without their express permission for the particular occasion.

9) Stories or “jokes”about your colleagues should be saved for retirement “roasts,”and then told with loving discretion. What you consider “funny”may not be to the colleague.

10) Remember: the measure of appropriateness is the impact on others, not your intent.

Footnotes:

[1] New York Attorney Bonita Zelman’s phrase as quoted by Bob Herbert in “Words as Weapons,”The New York Times Op-Ed section, Monday, April 23, 2007.

[2] Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1971.

[3] Id. “Words as Weapons.”

.

CaseConference

We post an ethical or situational concern that has arisen in a facility where one of our readers works. It has no identifiers included. It gives you only the facts of the case. Then, you can respond to that concern. This is an ongoing dialogue, with comments added as they come in. In the following issue, assuming it has been resolved, we give you the outcome from the facility where the incident took place.

We are always looking for cases. Please send any cases that you would like considered for inclusion to: info@plainviews.org We will ensure that it is stripped of any identifiers. For further guidance about how to write up a CaseConference, please refer to the CaseConference Archives, Vol. 4, No. 3 "How to Submit a Case for CaseConference." (Click HERE)

We hope that this will help to inform not only those who are dealing with the issue, but will enable all of our readers to learn from the experiences and perhaps mistakes of others.

PLEASE NOTE: Due to unanticipated continuing responses to both the case and the resolution of the case, added responses can be viewed in the archives. Click HERE.

Editor's note: this case was submitted by a chaplain seeking feedback on his/her own work. This is part of why CaseConference was created. We applaud this chaplain for stepping forward to seek consultation in this very public way and we hope others will do likewise. This is an example of how we might all improve our practice and advance best practice in our profession.

Case #18 (please see below for responses)

A code pink was called in the urgent care clinic. The chaplain responded to the call and was informed that an infant boy had died. The specialist explained to the team that the child’s death was expected, although he died much sooner than anticipated. The condition could not be treated. Another doctor asked the specialist if she was okay. She said she was fine, stating again that his death was expected.

The chaplain was directed to the grandmother and stayed with her until the nurse manager arrived to escort them to view the dead child. The grandmother had brought the child to the clinic for the first appointment with a specialist. The family had moved to the area recently. Prior to their move, their son had been diagnosed with a terminal condition.

When the parents and the grandfather arrived, the chaplain continued to be present with them. They welcomed the time to be with their child.

The specialist came into the room very briefly when the parents arrived. She offered a quick summary of what had happened and then left. The parents grieved appropriately. (Yes, they expected their child to die but not that day.) The reason for the referral to this specialist was their hope that treatment would ease their child’s pain and allow them to hold him without discomfort to him.

After the family left, the chaplain visited with some members of the staff, and later attempted to determine if a debriefing session would be called. The nurse manager, who decides if there will be a debriefing session, decided that a session was not needed (the staff had not requested one). Even with the support of the director of pastoral care, the nurse manager did not see the need for the session.

What is the chaplain’s role when he/she feels that a decision made is incorrect?

How can the chaplain ensure that staff involved are given the support needed so that they can continue to do their jobs?

What is the chaplain’s role with the specialist?

What is the chaplain’s role with the nurse manager?

Is there a systemic issue that the chaplain needs to consider and try to improve?

Case # 18 responses

My first observation is that if the chaplain sees the need for a debriefing, but the staff, the nurse manager, and the physician do not, then perhaps it is the chaplain who experienced the child's death as traumatic and not the medical staff. Certainly the death of a child is one of those events that is usually high on a critical incident list, but not every member of a team experiences the same event in the same way and what is traumatic for one staff member may not be traumatic for another staff member, what is not traumatic today may be devastating tomorrow or a month from now. The impact of this child's death may hit certain staff members later, or it may be triggered by another child's death, or it simply may not be a critical incident for this staff in this time and this place.

My second observation is that within the tools available for critical incident stress management, perhaps the chaplain chose the wrong intervention or limited him/herself to a single intervention rather than considering the many tools available in a situation like this and offering the nurse manager and the staff some options other than debriefing. A debriefing is a major intervention in terms of time, money, and emotional investment and to pursue debriefing when a staff does not want or need one is wasteful. It can also be hurtful to force debriefing on staff who do not want or need it. It isn't a matter of debriefing or nothing. Perhaps if the chaplain had offered pastoral care or a different critical incident tool -- defusing or demobilization, for instance -- the nurse manager and the rest of the staff would have been more receptive or would have seen their need in a different light. Following some other preliminary critical incident intervention or just good pastoral care, they may have welcomed a debriefing later. Certainly, they will view the chaplain in a different light if the chaplain offers what the staff needs rather than what the chaplain wants to give.

My third observation is that the chaplain still has available to him/her the gifts and interventions of pastoral care to offer that staff on an ongoing basis. The staff are denying the need for a debriefing. They may or may not need a debriefing, but they state that they do not. They may, on the other hand, welcome the pastoral support and care of a gifted chaplain.

My fourth observation is that this case refers to the medical staff -- nurses, nurse managers, specialists -- but makes no mention of the other staff who witnessed the child's death or the events surrounding the child's death -- housekeeping, clerical, administrative staff, security. A child death in any setting is shocking; a child death in an outpatient clinic is especially shocking. The other staff who were present need to be included in any critical incident response and in the chaplain's follow-up care. It is possible that their managers and directors would welcome intervention that the nurse manager does not.

My fifth observation is that the chaplain him/herself may be in need of post-critical incident intervention which his/her director can provide or arrange in order for the chaplain to return to work.

What is the chaplain's role with the nurse manager? If the nurse manager were refusing pastoral care and critical incident intervention when the staff is saying they need it, then the chaplain's role is clear. However, in this instance the staff, too, are saying they do not need an intervention at this time and are ready and able to return to work. The chaplain's role is to be sensitive to their needs, to be available when they do need intervention -- which may be the next shift, the next month, or the next child death -- and to have more than one intervention to offer. The chaplain's role is not to play pastor-knows-best.

Is there a systemic issue that the chaplain needs to consider and try to improve? That's difficult to answer on the basis of the information provided. If the critical incident policies and procedures for this setting are not clear or are not reasonable or are only honored in the breech, then there may be a need for review, for a champion in the system, or for other action. The chaplain can be an effective and appropriate advocate for those things. Perhaps the systemic issue is that the chaplain does not have the trust of the staff or the nurse manager and so any care offered will be declined; again, the chaplain's role or the director's role is clear if this is the situation. Perhaps the systemic issue is systemic w/in the chaplain, though, who desperately needs to provide pastoral care to a staff who do not want, and may or may not need, the specific care the chaplain is offering them in the moment.

Linda Brown
Staff Chaplain / Coordinator of Spiritual Health Services
Truman Medical Center - Hospital Hill
Kansas City, MO

Please check the archives for comments made about previous CaseConferences.

Send your comments about CaseConference to info@PlainViews.org.

Reviews

Sarah Masters reviews the audio meditation

When Things Fall Apart

Buddhist nun Pema Chodron primarily reflects on the complexities of being compassionate in this abridged audio-CD set of her book of the same title.

She singles out in particular those individuals who want to help others. Chodron points out that the individual who needs help, whether it is spiritual guidance, financial assistance, or any other kind of help, can often trigger unresolved issues in the person wishing to help. “Even though we want to help, and maybe we do help for a few days or a month or two, sooner or later someone walks through that door and pushes all our buttons," she says.

Chaplains and others involved in reaching out to individuals can end up struggling with dislike or fear of the individual in need, or feel unable to constructively handle the situation, according to Chodron. “Sooner or later,”she cautions, “all our own unresolved issues will come up; we'll be confronted with ourselves.”

In this 2-CD set, Pema Chodron calls on individuals involved in compassionate outreach to realize that “compassionate action involves working with ourselves as much as working with others.”She considers compassionate action a practice, or skill, and believes that “there’s nothing more advanced than relating with others. There’s nothing more advanced than communication, compassionate communication.”

Pema Chodron is resident teacher at Gampo Abbey in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. She is also the author of The Wisdom of No Escape and Start Where You Are.

Completed: 2001
Running Time: 150 Minutes/2 CDs
Publisher: Sounds True

If you are interested in purchasing this CD set, you can do so at www.hartleyfoundation.org. Just click on “Sages of Our Age”on the homepage for more information. The cost is $24.95 for the 2-CD set.

Sarah Masters is the Managing Director of the Hartley Film Foundation, a non-profit foundation dedicated to cultivation, support, production and distribution of the best documentaries and audio meditations on world religions, spirituality, ethics and well-being.

Book Review

Rabbi Dr. David J. Zucker, BCC, reviews

A Time for Listening and Caring:
Spirituality and the Care of the Chronically Ill and Dying

As His Holiness the Dalai Lama wrote in the Foreword to this volume, “In the practice of healing, a kind heart is as valuable as medical training . . . other people respond to kindness even when medicine is ineffective . . . Real care of the sick [begins . . .] with the simple acts of affection, love and concern.”(p. vii) The role of Spirituality in the care of seriously ill, chronically ill, and dying patients is the basis for this book. The book’s editor and major contributor is Christina M. Puchalski, MD, who serves as Director of the George Washington Institute of Spirituality and Health (GWISH). She is an internationally recognized leader in the field of integrating spirituality and healthcare.

This diverse book, divided into four sections, reflects lessons learned from patients and scientific research, scholarly study, as well as the experiences of clinicians, chaplains, clergy, caregivers, and educators. This work wonderfully combines theory and practice: it addresses the whys and the hows of spiritual care and then, offers pragmatic advice for hands-on caregivers.

•“Spirituality, Beliefs, Ethics, Presence and Relationship,”explores some general principles about spirituality, considers the role of the chaplain and the spirituality of the caregiver and patient. It stresses the importance of being a compassionate presence, and the healing power of relationship-centered care. Puchalski herself considers the role of spirituality in patient care and writes about the “Spiritual Stages of Dying.”Spirituality is not a one-size fits all enterprise. A separate chapter by Patricia Fosarelli looks at “The Spiritual Issues Faced by Children and Adolescents.”Spiritual Care is an ethical imperative explains Laurence J. O’Connell. Stephen Mann addresses “The Role of Chaplains in the Care of the Dying: A Partnership between the Religious Community and the Healthcare Community.”

•“Theological and Religious Perspectives”considers the theological implications of spiritual care, presenting several religious and cultural traditions. A number of chapters focus on end-of-life care. Examples include Mary Lou O’Gorman’s contribution, which offers a Catholic Perspective, while Imam Yusuf Hasan and Yusef Salaam’s chapter addresses “Faith and Islamic Issues at the End of Life.”“Spirituality, Suffering, and Prayerful Presence within Jewish Tradition,”David J. Zucker and Bonita E. Taylor, (the chapter I coauthored) takes a broader approach to the subject. Individual chapters present Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish and Ojibwe [Native American/First Nation] perspectives.

•“Application and Tools”covers a wide area of pragmatic approaches. Puchalski wrote the first chapter wherein she offers practical tools for spiritual care. “Honoring the Patient’s Story”by John D. Engel, Lura Pethtel, and Joseph Zarconi; Michael Stillwater-Korns and Gary Malkin’s “The Role of Music at the End of Life,”“The Arts: A Nondenominational Tool for Reconnecting Spirituality and Medicine”by Betheanne Deluca-Verley, and Paul Tshudi’s “Grief: A Wall or a Door”are found in this section.

•“Patient Stories and Reflection”includes the experiences of women and men in their journeys through what Cornelius Bennhold terms the “Transformation and Redemption through the Dark Night of the Soul.”

Helpful Appendices feature sections on Resources, Religious Beliefs and Practices, plus Advance Directives in the Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Muslim traditions. The Contributors Page includes e-mail addresses should someone want to contact an author for more information.

Puchalski, Christina M., editor. A Time for Listening and Caring: Spirituality and the Care of the Chronically Ill and Dying. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 458. Foreword by His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Do you have thoughts about these reviews you’d like to share with your colleagues? Send an e-mail to info@PlainViews.org