Jesus Practiced Advance Care Planning: Biblical Basis and Possible Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Persons from a Christian tradition may have concerns that impede advance care planning for end of life. Sharing how Jesus practiced advance care planning may provide a pivot point to help ameliorate this problem. Objective: To present a novel approach to advance care planning from a Christian tradition. Evolution of the Novel Approach: Experiential learning that resulted in the novel approach is described using Kolb's learning cycle: proceeding from concrete experience to reflective observation followed by abstract conceptualization and then active experimentation. Results: The novel approach builds on events toward the end of Jesus' life to demonstrate how he practiced advance care planning: telling those close to him that he was going to die even though they did not want to hear this, participating in a celebration of his life on Palm Sunday, sharing a Last Supper with those close to him, showing them how he wanted to be remembered, asking his friends to pray with him in the garden of Gethsemane, and saying to his mother that John would care for her. Questions related to these events are posed for use by health and spiritual care professionals to innovatively engage persons in advance care planning. Discussion: This approach might be adapted for persons of other religious traditions by exploring their sacred teachings. It is proffered for others to explore, adapt, and evaluate for its utility in initiating and facilitating advance care planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".