Ethics Of Religion In Therapy Writing Sample

Introduction

Over the last few years, professional psychotherapy rediscovered spirituality and religion in therapy, whereby numerous workshops and resources integrate spirituality into psychology. Various ethical considerations arise from incorporating spirituality and religion in professional psychotherapy. Therefore, ethical concerns should be addressed effectively. Therapists and patients may be hesitant to use spirituality or religion in therapy practice because of the possibility of differing beliefs and controversy of the topic. However, based on research, the therapist’s involvement in the patient’s spiritual beliefs may help improve the healing process and therapy (Tabei et al., 2016). The therapy process is meant to enhance the client’s well-being. Eliminating the spirituality approach in therapy can also affect the clients negatively. Therapists are urged to ensure high professional competency standards during therapy. They are bound to implement a collaborative approach when one lacks proper training and understanding of incorporating spirituality and religion in therapy (Rusu & Turliuc, 2015). This paper identifies the ethical impact of introducing spirituality or religion into several therapy areas, including multiple relationships, competence, informed consent, and imposing religious values.

Competence

Therapists perceive competence as one of the most substantial ethical practice standards. It handles various issues, including embracing equality, diversity, respect, ethics, integrity training, education, and other aspects. Under the competence standard, every therapist must illustrate a practical understanding of the issues and problems the clients are facing and make an effort to provide solutions to the problems and challenges. The therapist’s competence levels can be questioned if they introduce the spirituality or religious values aspects in therapy sessions without informing the patient or seeking their consent. Technically, therapists should depict higher knowledge levels concerning spirituality and religion topics (Uwakwe, 2020). Knowledge can be acquired through training, education, and supervision experience before being integrated into the practice. Knowledge and understanding are closely related and linked. Therapists should efficiently comprehend the ethical implications when handling spirituality issues during therapy sessions, including diverse cultural differences, since every patient has a different religious background and may have different religious beliefs. A therapist should illustrate more profound knowledge and understanding of different religious beliefs and cultures to assist patients when dealing with differing cultures, spirituality, and religions.

The competency level and standard help therapists determine whether spirituality and religious beliefs would be effective in assisting the patients to recover quickly during the healing process. One of the most critical aspects of competency is self-awareness which can be applied to comprehend the concept of spirituality or religion being introduced in therapy sessions (Uwakwe, 2020). Self-awareness is critical because it encourages therapists to avoid imposing their values or religious beliefs on patients. Therapists should not impose their values and beliefs when incorporating religion in therapy treatment and process. Still, they should be aware of the patient’s beliefs and values before adopting spirituality and religion in the healing process.

Multiple Relationships

Multiple relationships occur when therapists are involved in professional roles with patients or clients while playing other roles in their lives with similar clients. The other role the therapist may be involved in may include a personal connection or relationship between the client and therapist, especially being relatives or friends, despite having a professional connection between a therapist and a client. The other role may also be depicted to imply that the therapist may be interested in forming close relations with the patient in the future or would like to be associated with the client after treatment. Based on APA guidelines and standards, therapists must avoid forming multiple relationships with clients or patients that could impair their objectivity, purpose, competence, and effectiveness when performing their professional roles and functions (Amaglo, 2022). Relationships are the core concepts of the therapy process. Multiple relationships may be in the form of social, financial, business, or sexual. Although it is vital to avoid multiple relationships in the therapy process, not all relationships should be avoided, but only those with the potential to significantly harm the client or derail their healing process. In spirituality and religious concepts and matters, multiple relationships are perceived as unethical thus, can be applied in various spiritual or religious cases.

Imposing Religious Values in Therapy

This is a therapist’s strategy or attempt to directly influence their patients’ spiritual or religious beliefs, feelings, judgments, attitudes, and behaviors. Imposing values indicate boundary violations that can alter or interfere with the patient’s treatment progress and right to determination. Based on a recent study, clinical social workers claim that numerous therapists perceive that spiritual and religious discussions with the patient are vital in the therapy process since it helps to fasten the healing process. On the other hand, American Psychology Association is firm and vocal about respecting the client’s diversity regarding religion, race, culture, and other critical aspects. Professional therapy perceives the client’s respect as an essential feature; thus, imposing values on clients during treatment and therapy sessions is viewed as unethical based on the therapists’ code of ethics (Çetintaş & Halil, 2020). Technically, therapists can potentially impose their spiritual beliefs and values on clients by making direct statements that can impact or influence the client’s course of action leading to active involvement. Additionally, a therapist can passively impose their religious beliefs on patients through non-verbal communication, especially when providing a Bible in the client’s room without understanding their spirituality or religion.

Based on the APA code of ethics, imposing religious values and beliefs on a patient leads to a violation of the client’s personal space, which should never be interfered with. Therapists can use various ways and techniques to avoid imposing religious beliefs or values on patients. The approaches include; maintaining a neutral position in religious matters, seeking supervision, and developing self-awareness (Çetintaş & Halil, 2020). The best approach and tool for therapists is self-awareness which entails understanding the patient’s religious beliefs and spirituality to avoid imposing religious beliefs on them. Instead, the therapist can introduce the values and beliefs linked to the patient’s spiritual and religious alignment and beliefs after seeking their consent. Self-awareness development entails an extensive inventory of therapists’ values, attitudes, behaviors, and feelings. The therapists must observe their patients’ reactions to various statements and actions.

Informed Consent

The APA code of ethics standard 3.10 stipulates that medical practitioners like therapists should obtain informed consent from clients or patients before introducing new treatment. In this case, this is before introducing religious beliefs and spirituality in therapy sessions. The standard dictates that the patients should be informed sooner or earlier as it is perceived feasible in therapy relations concerning the expected therapy course, confidentiality limits, third-party involvement, and nature of the relationship. The standard provisions direct that when therapists seek informed consent to treat the patients, they must inform the clients about the nature of the treatment and possible risks associated with the alternative treatment. When obtaining informed consent from patients, the therapists recognize techniques and procedures that have not yet been implemented in the treatment that can help the patient in the healing process. Therefore, the patient must be exhaustively helped to understand what the treatment entails, including the possible risks and consequences that may arise from the new treatment approach.

Therapists must evaluate clients’ needs and opinions regarding religious interventions and acquire informed consent. Numerous religious interventions may be appropriate for some clients and inappropriate for others. Varying spiritual and religious beliefs influence the patient’s needs, expectations, and hopes in therapy (Rusu & Turliuc, 2015). For therapists to incorporate religious values in the treatment process, they must acquire informed consent from the patients to keep up with and maintain ethical standards and provisions. The APA provisions oblige therapists to seek informed consent when unknown or unapproved treatment suggestions for the patients are being used. Therefore, before therapists include spirituality or religion in therapy treatment, they should inform patients about it and ensure they are comfortable and consent to the idea. The concept should be discarded if the patient fails to consent to spiritual involvement in therapy.

Conclusion

Involving religion in Psychotherapy is problematic and needs the therapists to respect boundaries. Therapists’ ability to comprehend and understand the patients’ spiritual and religious lives is a critical feature of psychotherapeutic competence. Additionally, information regarding patients’ spiritual and religious lives reveals highly essential details which can boost the healing process. When enquiring about the patient’s religious beliefs and values, therapists must demonstrate curiosity and respect for the specific aspect of the patient’s life, even if there is a variance between the therapist’s and the patient’s beliefs. Therapeutic abuse may occur when the therapists communicate in a way that reflects their agenda or influence that avoids the neutral feature and principle of therapy treatment. Spiritual assessment should be systematically included in psychotherapy education as a core competency. Introducing spiritual and religious beliefs and values in patients’ lives during treatment requires absolute professionalism and a higher level of quality education, attitude, skills, knowledge, and a comprehensive understanding of the sophisticated biopsychosocial model.

References

Amaglo, E. (2022). MANAGING BOUNDARIES AND MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS IN COUNSELLING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY. Global Journal of Psychology2(1), 1-11.

Çetintaş, Ş., & Halil, E. K. Ş. İ. (2020). Spiritually oriented couple, marriage and family therapies. Spiritual Psychology and Counseling5(1), 7-24.

Rusu, P. P., & Turliuc, M. N. (2015). Ethical issues of integrating spirituality and religion in couple and family therapy. Revista Romana de Bioetica9(1).

Tabei, S. Z., Zarei, N., & Joulaei, H. (2016). The impact of spirituality on health.

Uwakwe, R. (2020). Integration of Spirituality into Psychotherapy–A Potential Model for Nigeria. International Journal for Psychotherapy in Africa5(1).

Euthanasia / Right To Die Sample Essay

Euthanasia, often known as physician-aided death, assisted suicide, or the right to die, is a very contentious and complex subject that has been discussed for decades. It refers to purposely taking someone’s life to eliminate their suffering due to an incurable disease or condition.

Euthanasia has historically been seen as a mercy killing, with ancient Greek and Roman societies permitting it under specific conditions. “euthanasia” refers to deliberately taking a person’s life to stop suffering. It is derived from the Greek terms “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death). Euthanasia has a long history and was occasionally regarded as a mercy killing in ancient Greek and Roman society (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

Euthanasia was regarded as a dignified and humane method of putting an end to the suffering of terminally sick patients in ancient Greece. Aristotle, a philosopher, believed that it was occasionally necessary to take a person’s life if they were in excruciating suffering, provided it was done in a kind and dignified way. On the subject of euthanasia, early Christian thought was divided. Euthanasia was regarded as a sin by some Christians, but it was viewed as a kindness by others. As the Christian Church began to consider euthanasia sinful, most nations outlawed the practice.

Similarly, euthanasia was once more accepted in some circles during the Renaissance. The morality of ending the lives of the terminally ill was a topic of discussion among physicians and philosophers; some said that doing so was a compassionate act. The concept of individual autonomy and the right to self-determination gained popularity during the Enlightenment. According to philosophers like John Locke, people have the right to manage their own lives, including ending them if they are in excruciating pain or suffering. Nevertheless, with the development of new medical technologies and the rise in the number of people with fatal illnesses, euthanasia became a contentious topic in modern times during the 20th century (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

The growing number of patients with terminal or incurable illnesses facing a lengthy and painful death makes euthanasia important in today’s healthcare environment. Medical technology advancements have increased life expectancy, but frequently at the expense of increased misery. This prompts many people to question their freedom to choose their death and the quality of their existence. End-of-life care is crucial due to the ageing population and mounting pressure on healthcare systems. While euthanasia gives those who want to end their suffering a choice, it also poses complex issues regarding medical ethics, patient autonomy, and the function of healthcare professionals (Minocha & Mishra, 2019).

Additionally, euthanasia is significant because it emphasizes the value of having dialogues about death and dying. When faced with a severe illness, many people find it difficult to talk about their end-of-life wishes and are frequently unprepared for the choices they may need to make. Euthanasia compels society to confront these challenging questions and reflect on the best approach to alleviate people’s suffering. Euthanasia gives a chance to re-evaluate what defines the quality of life and to contemplate a more compassionate approach to end-of-life care in today’s healthcare environment, where the focus is frequently on extending life at any cost. It is an important topic that will be argued and discussed for years.

On the topic of euthanasia, the medical community is divided, with many medical organizations and individual doctors expressing opposing viewpoints. While some medical professionals oppose euthanasia on moral and ethical grounds, others embrace it to end suffering and respect patient autonomy. Euthanasia supporters contend that it is a humane approach to patients experiencing intolerable suffering and is in line with medical ethics’ ideals of relieving suffering and respecting patient autonomy. Additionally, they contend that it is a strategy to guarantee that patients have a calm and respectable death. The Royal Dutch Medical Association is one medical body that supports euthanasia as a way to end the suffering of terminally ill patients who are in immense pain and have no other options. They think that with the proper protections in place to protect patients, physician-assisted suicide can be done in a way that is both morally and safely acceptable (Minocha & Mishra, 2019).

Euthanasia is opposed on the grounds that it violates the sanctity of life and the fundamental tenet of the Hippocratic Oath, which is to do no harm. Additionally, they worry that weak patients could be forced into choosing euthanasia and that the practice could be abused. For instance, both the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association oppose physician-assisted suicide. They hold that a doctor’s primary duty is to safeguard and preserve life and that willfully ending a patient’s life is against the doctor’s job. Some medical experts also choose a neutral approach, appreciating the intricacy and complexity of the controversy and agreeing that both sides have strong points to make. They contend that each patient’s needs and circumstances should be considered when determining whether or not to support euthanasia (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

People on both sides of the argument have strong opinions on the sensitive topic of euthanasia. There are a variety of views on this subject, from those who favour legalizing euthanasia to those who are against it. Proponents contend that the right to self-determination and individual liberty is at stake. They claim that everyone should be free to choose how they want to die, especially if they are terminally ill and in agony. They argue that euthanasia can be carried out painlessly and under conditions that prevent patients from being harmed.

On the other hand, those opposed to euthanasia claim that willfully ending a life under any circumstances is morally wrong. They contend that euthanasia is easily exploited, resulting in unintentional deaths and endangering vulnerable groups like the elderly and disabled. They suggest that there are more approaches, such as palliative care and pain management, to managing suffering towards the end of life. On moral and ethical grounds, religious organizations like the Catholic Church generally oppose euthanasia, while other human rights organizations view it as a violation of the right to life. People on both sides of the euthanasia debate have strong and firmly held ideas, and the discussion is complicated and passionate (Minocha & Mishra, 2019).

Euthanasia legalization is still a contentious topic in many nations, with some doing so and others not. The argument over euthanasia is still going on, and while some countries have authorized it in some situations, many others haven’t. Euthanasia is permitted and governed in a few nations, including the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Other countries, like Switzerland, allow assisted suicide but not euthanasia. While some states have authorized physician-assisted dying, most states in the US still prohibit euthanasia. Euthanasia is a controversial topic that will probably remain so as long as society struggles with these problematic ethical issues (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic since it poses many ethical and legal issues. The main ethical and legal concerns about the essence of euthanasia are as follows: The right to life is one of the leading legal questions regarding euthanasia. The argument put up by euthanasia’s opponents is that it breaches everyone’s right to life and that it is never ethical to willfully take someone’s life, even if they give their agreement. Euthanasia advocates contend that the right to self-determination and individual autonomy is at stake.

Medical ethics: Euthanasia raises moral concerns regarding the role of medical personnel in taking a patient’s life. Both the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association oppose physician-assisted suicide, claiming that it is improper for a doctor to take someone’s life deliberately. Criminal law: Euthanasia is prohibited in many nations and is punishable by harsh legal consequences, including jail. A change in criminal law would be necessary to make euthanasia legal; this would be very contentious and vulnerable to legal challenges.

Abuse and coercion issues: There are worries that euthanasia could be used abusively, resulting in unintentional deaths or putting at-risk groups like the elderly and disabled in danger. Euthanasia may, according to proponents, be carried out safely and with measures in place to protect patients from abuse.

Religion: The sanctity of life and the role of divine intervention in death are among the many philosophical and spiritual issues raised by euthanasia. Religious beliefs and ideals may influence the public’s perception of euthanasia and the legal system. Sanctity of life: Euthanasia presents moral issues regarding the value of life and the ethical ramifications of purposefully ending a person’s life. While some people hold the view that life is sacred and should never be taken, others think everyone has the right to end their suffering. Autonomy-related issues: Euthanasia questions people’s right to personal autonomy and the choice between life and death. Some people think it’s okay to choose how they pass away, while others believe the government should always put life protection first (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

Euthanasia is still contentious and divisive, and different countries have different views and legal frameworks. On the one hand, euthanasia’s supporters contend that it is a matter of personal autonomy and the right to self-determination, allowing people to end their suffering respectably. Opponents argue that euthanasia violates the sanctity of life and the right to life and can be abused or used to take people’s lives in vulnerable situations. Numerous legal and moral issues are raised by the debate over euthanasia, including the sanctity of life, the place of doctors and other medical professionals, the criminalization of the practice, abuse and coercion concerns, and the role of religion.

There is still no amicable agreement on these issues, including whether euthanasia is morally acceptable or legal. Euthanasia legalization is ultimately a complex and intensely personal decision that involves balancing several conflicting moral, ethical, and legal considerations. No matter how one feels about the subject, it’s important to have respectful, informed conversations and consider other people’s perspectives and experiences.

References

Minocha, V. R., & Mishra, A. (2019). Euthanasia: Ethical Challenges of Shift from “Right to Die” to “Objective Decision.” Annals of the National Academy of Medical Sciences (India)55(02), 110–115.

Sethi, S., & Singh, A. (2021). Euthanasia: The New Phase of Right to Die. Issue 5 Int’l JL Mgmt. & Human.4, 953.

Existentialism And Religion: Buddhism And Judaism University Essay Example

Humans can ask questions about the meaning of life, their accountability, the validity of their decisions, and their understanding of nature and reality. The answers to these questions influence how individuals perceive various realities—existential questions aid in determining one’s decisions based on free will and active participation. Being genuine requires making sincere and accountable decisions. People can live authentic lives, pursue meaningful relationships, and have knowledge of the past, present, and future. Individuals experience sorrow, love, loss, happiness, and hope. The majority of existential questions are concerned with determining the significance of life in light of its inevitable conclusion. This project investigates the Buddhist and Jewish perspectives on existential issues. The analysis will focus on topics such as the definition of a good life, concerns regarding the afterlife, and social justice issues between the two religions.

Key Beliefs

Buddhism is a major religion that originated in South Asia around the 5th century (National Geographic, 2023). The religion began with Siddhartha Gautama and spread across Asia and the globe. Buddhism is based on the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. The Four Noble Truths are: life is suffering, suffering is caused by desire, the way to end suffering is to eliminate desire, and the way to eliminate desire is to follow the Eightfold Path (Bodhi, 2013). The Eightfold Path is a set of moral and ethical guidelines for living a life free from suffering. Buddhists also believe in rebirth and the cycle of death and rebirth.

Judaism is a monotheistic religion that dates back 4,000 years (Richardson, 2020). Judaism followers believe in one God and his prophets. Judaism’s history is significant in understanding the Jewish faith and its culture, law, and tradition. According to Judaism, good deeds will be rewarded in the afterlife, and evil deeds will be punished (Jewish Virtual Library, 2019). They also view life as a precious gift from God, and it is each person’s responsibility to make this life as meaningful as possible.

Comparison

Existential Issues and Questions Surrounding Afterlife – Buddhism

Existential questions and concerns surround the Buddhist view of the afterlife. When individuals ponder the meaning of life and death, these questions arise. Questions about what will occur after death, where the spirit will go, and what will occur in the afterlife are among those that arise (Watts & Tomatsu, 2012). The belief that the spirit continues after death and can be reborn raises questions about what happens to the soul, whether it will be reincarnated, and if so, how. As Buddhists believe in the law of karma, which states that one’s actions determine their fate in this life and the next, questions of morality and karma also arise. There are also questions regarding duty and responsibility, as well as how to be mindful of one’s actions.

Buddhists believe that attaining nirvana in the afterlife breaks the cycle of rebirth and death. Buddhists consider life and death to be inextricably intertwined. According to the religion, the spirit can be reborn after death (Watts & Tomatsu, 2012). The opportunity to be reborn allows people to break free from the cycle of life by attaining nirvana. Funeral ceremonies vary by culture.

Regarding death, Tibetan Buddhism has more clearly defined customs and practices, whereas Mahayana and Western Buddhism have less clearly defined customs and practices (Watts & Tomatsu, 2012). While a person is dying, traditional prayers are said, but the length of the stages of prayer varies. Regardless of their religious beliefs, every Buddhist can make their final wishes. The individual’s level of practice determines the practices. While understanding what happens after death is still unclear, the discussion surrounding the afterlife encourages individuals to live a mindful and ethical life. Individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and make ethical decisions that will help them to attain nirvana in the afterlife.

Existential Issues and Questions Surrounding Afterlife – Judaism

Jews’ primary existential concern regarding the afterlife is that it is not a central concern. Judaism does not rely on an afterlife belief to motivate good deeds and moral behavior. Instead, Judaism promotes living life to the fullest in the present, performing good deeds, and leading a moral life because it is the right thing to do. By doing so, Jews can embrace life and live it in a way that honors God and benefits the world.

Another existential issue surrounding the question of the afterlife for Jews is the uncertainty of what comes after death. Jews believe in a physical resurrection of the dead, and the righteous’s souls will be taken to heaven. However, there is no clear explanation of what occurs after that, and it is up to the reader to determine what occurs. This uncertainty can induce feelings of anxiety and fear, as well as a sense of alienation from the afterlife.

There is little emphasis on the afterlife in Judaism. Judaism focuses on what individuals should do while alive and holds that life is meant only for the living (Schwartz, n.d.). Judaism adherents believe in reincarnation, animal spirits, zombies, and other extraordinary afterlife phenomena. Judaism, unlike Buddhism, rejects the concept of rebirth. According to their belief, the souls of the dead will ascend to heaven upon their resurrection from the grave (Sacks, 2014).

Moreover, there is the issue of whether the afterlife is essential to Jews. While some Jews may view the concept of the afterlife as important, it is not a significant part of the religion and is not a primary motivator for living a moral life. This can create a feeling of being disconnected from the afterlife or not belonging to a spiritual belief system.

Defining Good Life and Happiness – Buddhism

A good life, according to Buddhism, is lived without attachment or aversion to achieve personal growth and enlightenment (Ricard, 2014). Buddhists consider life a journey; each moment is a chance to explore and learn new things. They believe that suffering is caused by attachment and aversion, so they strive to be mindful and live in the present moment. Buddhists view happiness as an internal experience that can be achieved through meditation and mindfulness. Buddhists learn to accept their circumstances through meditation and mindfulness and remain aware of their thoughts and feelings. Buddhism teaches that the key to a good life is to live in the present moment and to be mindful of one’s thoughts and feelings. This means one should strive to be free from attachment and aversion and open to new experiences. Happiness is not found in material possessions or the future but in how one lives each moment. By being mindful and living in the present moment, one can experience joy, peace, and understanding.

Defining Good Life and Happiness – Judaism

Comparatively, in Judaism, good life and happiness can be defined by living per the principles and values of the faith. According to Judaism, a good life is filled with meaningful connections to God and others. According to Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler, happiness is not found in the world of things (Sacks, 2014). A Jewish person’s life should focus on developing a relationship with the divine and strengthening their connection with other people. Judaism teaches that living following the commandments of the Torah is the Path one must take to achieve a meaningful and purposeful life.

Judaism also teaches that being a part of a community and engaging in acts of service and charity is essential for a good life. Jewish people are encouraged to reach out to others, help those in need, and use their talents to make the world better. This service will bring a person joy and contentment, which are the hallmarks of happiness. Furthermore, Jews are taught to strive for personal growth and development and to continually strive for knowledge and understanding of God and the world.

In conclusion, Judaism defines a good life and happiness as living per the values and principles of the faith. Achieving a meaningful connection with God and other people is critical, as is engaging in acts of service and charity. A Jewish person can find true and lasting happiness by striving for personal growth and development.

Personal Evaluation

In my evaluation of Buddhism and Judaism, I have discovered that each religion has a distinct perspective on existential questions. I find Buddhism’s emphasis on the cycle of life and death and the attainment of nirvana intriguing. Following the Eightfold Path to live a life of clarity, peace, and comprehension also appeals to me as a way of life. In contrast, I value Judaism’s emphasis on the physical resurrection of the dead and the significance of devoting one’s life to serving God. It is essential to acknowledge that both religions offer distinctive perspectives on life and death and have valuable lessons to impart about living a meaningful life.

Areas of Future Research

Future research in this field could examine the intersections between Existentialism and Religion, focusing on how religion can assist individuals in finding meaning and purpose in their lives. In addition, the research could investigate the effects of Existentialism and Religion on such topics as death, suffering, and morality.

Conclusion

This paper has examined Buddhism and Judaism’s existential questions. By analyzing the central tenets of each religion and comparing the similarities and differences in how they approach the issue, I have come to comprehend the distinctive approach of each religion to existential questions. I have also developed a personal assessment of the two religions and their respective approaches to the issue. Again I now understand how this has influenced my future engagement with practitioners and non-practitioners. I have included at least four scholarly sources to demonstrate an adequate depth and breadth of research.

References

Bodhi, B. (2013). The Noble Eightfold Path: The Way to the End of Suffering. Accesstoinsight.org. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html

Burnham, D., & Papandreopoulos, G. (2018). Existentialism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/existent/

Jewish Virtual Library. (2019). Reward and Punishment. Www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/reward-and-punishment

National Geographic Society. (2023, July 10). Buddhism. National Geographic Society; National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/buddhism/

Richardson, E. (2020, May 3). What Is Judaism? Www.worldhistory.org. https://www.worldhistory.org/video/2125/what-is-judaism/

Ricard, M. (2014). A BUDDHIST VIEW OF HAPPINESS. Journal of Law and Religion, 29(1), 14-29. doi:10.1017/jlr.2013.9

Sacks, J. (2014). HAPPINESS: A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE. Journal of Law and Religion, 29(1), 30-47. doi:10.1017/jlr.2013.2

Schwartz, E. A., (n.d.). Is There Life After Death? Jewish Thinking on the Afterlife. Moment Magazine. https://momentmag.com/is-there-life-after-death/

Watts, J. S., & Tomatsu, Y. (Eds.). (2012). Buddhist care for the dying and bereaved. Simon and Schuster.