In the book When Breath Becomes Air, Dr. Kalanithi devotes a portion of the book to his journey from the child of devout parents to a man of science to a cancer patient re-embracing "the central values of Christianity" on his deathbed. Certainly he
is not the first person to detach from the practices of his parents nor the first doctor to decide "all
knowledge is scientific knowledge", as he put it. And of course he is not the only man to embrace religion
at the end of his life.
This appears to be an intellectual issue for him as much as a spiritual one, and he seems to
acknowledge both scientific and faith-based systems are left wanting:
Science may provide the most useful way to organize empirical, reproducible data, but its power to
do so is predicated on its inability to grasp the most central aspects of human life: hope, fear, love,
hate, beauty, envy, honor, weakness, striving, suffering, virtue. Between these core passions and
scientific theory, there will always be a gap. No system of thought can contain the fullness of human
experience.
How does one negotiate this? Is it simply belief vs. answers? Are religion and science really even at
odds? Does Dr. Kalanithi's grappling with these questions as he approaches death give them more
resonance? Can the metaphysical yearning of the quote above be satisfied by marrying science and
religion? Finding it elsewhere? Adding something else? Use specific examples from the text in your
response.

Read this excerpt from leo tolstoy's the death of ivan ilyich her attitude towards him and his diseases is still the same just as the doctor had adopted a certain relation to his patient which he could not abandon, so had she formed one towards him—that he was not doing something he ought to do and was himself to blame, and that she reproached him lovingly for this--and she could not now change that attitude. "you see he doesn't listen to me and doesn't take his medicine at the proper time. and above all he lies in a position that is no doubt bad for him.- with his legs up" she described how he made gerasim hold his legs up the doctor smiled with a contemptuous affability that said"what's to be done? these sick people do have foolish fancles of that kind, but we must forgive them they all rose, said good-night and went away when they had gone it seemed to ivan ilyich that he felt better, the falsity had gone with them. but the pain remained--that same pain and that same fear that made everything monotonously alike, nothing harder and nothing easier. everything was worse again minute followed minute and hour followed hour everything remained the same and there was no cessation. and the inevitable end of it all became more and more terrible based on the excerpt, how is praskovya fedorovna a character foil to ivan ilyich? a. she is kind and takes care of ivan, which is why he feels guilty about how he treated her for most of their married life • b. she is vindictive toward ivan while pretending to be worried about him, thus reminding him of how his family has never forgiven him she plays the part of the worried wife without any real feeling, symbolizing the false propriety ivan upheld but now hates c. d. she is young, healthy, and beautiful-everything ivan can never be again and wishes he could return to

Treatment of inconcitinence can include fluroquinolones surgery macrolides alpha-blockers

Which example from lorraine hansberry's a raisin in the sun demonstrates the idea of self-determination?