That very same day arraignments where made for a service so that all of the family could gather together and have a final good bye, and to come to terms with Mrs. Barrett's wishes and death. Cassem believes that Mrs. Barrett died a "good death" because she was able to put her affairs in order, and was able to die with as little pain as possible, and by having a living will she was able to still be involved in the decision-making. .
We live in a world were people experience ups and downs lamentably in life good and bad coexist. Dr. Ned Cassem has also been involved in what he believes is a "bad death". "It is a death they would be ashamed of. One that would make them cringe when they remember it. One that does damage to the integrity of the person" (Stein, 20). Stein also gives us an account of what Cassem believes to be a "bad death" in the case of the Gilgunn's family where Catherine Gilgunn's health deteriorated very fast after suffering a seizure. When her circumstances where described to her family the doctors felt it was in the best interest of their patient that they get a "do not resuscitate" order because "many doctors and nurses feel that resuscitating efforts on patients with no chance of recovery are a violation of the Hippocratic tradition to "do not harm". The process can be bloody and often requires breaking ribs" (Stein, 19). However the Gillgunn's where in total disapproval of the "do not resuscitate" order, for they believed that their mother wanted "everything possible to save her life" (Stein, 19). The medical staff, and Cassem were not going to resuscitate Catherine Gillgunn's body because they felt it would only prolong the anguish, and pain that she was already enduring, and finally would not allow her to die a "good death". In contrast to the families views to prolong her life was those of Cassem who believed that everyone should be entitled to die a "good death" when possible.