They gently handed him to his mother , where she shared a precious
moment with him before he quietly passed in her arms. However , the remarkable thing is that, despite the outcome
(which many would consider to be negative, and certainly a “failure”
by any medica l standard), the healing  that took place in that room
was both breathtaking and transformative. It was unlike anything I
had ever seen in my life! These specialists are the only two doctors I have seen let down
their walls and cry with a patient. They shared in the sadness of the
moment and, although they did nothing to change the outcome,
simply their presence and their way of being was healing. I know it
was healing! For it created an environment for that mother and for
that family where, despite the tragic nature of what occu rred, they
felt like they were not alone. And they felt like their experience was, Ithink to some degree, healed . . . or at least faster on the road to
being healed. However , I have never seen this sort of “holistic approach” to
healing include d in our medic al training. I have observed it from time
to time—and I have huge admiration for those physicians who take
their work to that metaphysical level —but I would absolutely say that
it is something they do of their own accord. NEALE: Do you think there’ s a place for it, or do you think that there
should be— I should restate that question—do you think there should
be, and would you recommend that there absolutely be, a place in
modern medica l training, in preparing a person to be a physician, for
metaphysical knowledge and practices? DR. COOPER: Personally, I absolutely think that there should be a
place for it in the medical profession and in medical school training. And I can’t even count the number of patients who would agree with
me! I say that beca use so many people have been dissatisfied with
their experie nce in the healthcare system—and, perhaps
surprisingly , the largest number of “complaints” are not about the
medical treatments themselves, but rather about the lack of mental,
emotional, and spiritual care that accompanies them. I could be
wrong about this, but it has certainly been my observation. So yes, in answer to your question, I absolutely think there is a
place for what we could loosely call spirituality  in modern medical
schools. And there are a few reasons I think this.First of all, the current medical model is based much more on
quantity of life rather than quality of life. But I think what people are
really interested in—what’ s at the heart of the matter , so to speak—is
healing their quality of life. In other words , of having an experience
here on the planet that is truly fulfilling. Which makes perfect sense
when you think about it. I mean, the whole reason that people are
showing up at your retreats is because their experience of life is not
fulfilling, whether they have a medical condition or not . And so I think every single profession, medicine included,
should prioritize bringing forth that spiritual and metaphysical aspect,
which taps us back into the real reason we’re here. What’ s the point
of staying alive, of preserving life, if we’re not going to do it in a way
that is fulfilling? I think all too many patients are discharged from the
hospital in a state that is so-called “cured,” but is really lacking in the
patient’ s own fulfillment. I would  be hard-pressed to call that a “cure”
when it comes to the real reason that we’re here on Earth. NEALE: But the challenge in the medical profession is that if we
bring metaphy sics into the physics of medicine, we are stymied,
because the question becomes: which metaphysical model, which
belief system, which spiritual thought system, should prevail, should
be taught, in a medical school? Do we declare  that a thing that’s called God exists? Or, do we
use a reduction ist approach and simply say, “Let’s not call it God, but
let’s all acknowledge at least from a scientific point of view that
there’ s such a thing as energy in the Universe . . . that All of Life is
made up of energy , and that this energy can be manip ulated and
focused with predictable and consistent results?”If we believe that, should we have a course in medical school
that teaches how we can focus this universal energy that we call Life
with predictable and consistent results? Should we have courses in
our medical schools about how those results can be created and
tabulated and measured and turned into some equally predictable
outcome, as we do with how we measure other outcomes in the
medical field? This raises just a bazillion interesting questions about how you
would insert metaphysics into medical training, and the inability to
answer those questions is no doubt why it hasn’t become part of
medical training. So ironically enough, membe rs of one of the most critical and
crucial occupations on the Earth—the occupation of those  who keep
us alive, and those who heal our most challenging physical
conditions—are not receiving any training whatsoever in the one
area of human expression that could be the most powerful single
area af fecting their physical and mental condition. DR. COOPER: It is ironic. Gosh, when you put it that way—but yes,
it makes total sense, for it would indeed create incessant controversy
as to which religion or spirituality to pick, which God to honor , and
how (if at all) to incorporate the soul into the practice of medicine. This would make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for
people to come up with a curriculum, or a “gold standard” of practice,
upon which everyone could agree. So it is completely
understandable why the medical profession, to date, has avoided
and in fact discouraged any overlap with spirituality or religion of any
kind.Yet I do not think the situation is hopeless. To the contrary , I feel very hopeful that we could, in fact, include
God in the medical school curriculum. And I would suggest it is
simpler than we might think, and that we do not have to “choose one
way to do it.” I think there could in fact be many ways, tailored to
each individual person and to each particular setting. And we could
create a set of principles rather than requirements, to allow people
the freedom to bring God forth in whatever way best serves the
moment and the people involved. You know, Neale, a thought just came to my mind. It would be
wonderful if we could just encourage among physicians the
willingness to ask the Four Fundamental Questions of Life . . . those
questions we touched upon at the very start of this book: Who am I? Where am I? Why am I where I am? What do I intend to do about
that? Which is, essentially , to ask ourselves, why am I in the space? I will never forget when I was telling you about my struggl es as
a medic al student, and you stopped me in my tracks to gently say:
Brit, consider the reason you’re in the space. And even if we just
encouraged everyone to answ er that question for themselves, I think
it would make a world of difference. I mean, imagine if every single
doctor reflected for a moment or two before walking into the patient’ s
room, and really asked themselves, “What am I doing here? Am I
getting though  as many patie nts as I can as fast as I can to get the
highest paycheck in the least amount of time? Perhaps. Or, is it
possible that I am here to serve a spiritual agenda, both for myself in
terms of how I show up, as well as for my patient? If so, how might
that look?”I vividly remember when you asked me that question. I was
totally caught off guard. Never before had I heard anyone consider a
medical encounter from that point of view. And it changed my whole
reason for going into the room! I thought, “Yeah, you know what, I am
here to serve a spiritual agenda.” And whatever I happened to decide
in that moment was my “agenda,” it almost didn’t matter, for it was
more about the elevated consciousness, and the heightened state of
being, that surrounded that decision. I became very clear that my reason for showing up in the room
involved a metaphysical aspect , and that simple acknowledgement
changed everything. NEALE: I’m here for a reaso n that transcends the physicality of the
moment. I am here for a reason that transcends the physicality of the
moment! DR. COOPER: I like that sentence! NEALE: Yes, and it drives directly to the question, What is the
purpose of Life itself? And what is the purpose of this moment,
interior to that larger agenda?Chapter Eight
 
A LOOK TO OUR FUTURE:
Healing Humanity’s Experience of Itself
 
 
DR. COOPER: I think it is time we take a look at our future—and not
only the future of medical science but, perhaps most importantly , the
future of humanity . I would like to start by talking about some new and exciting
medical technology , the advent of which causes us to question
things not just medically , but spiritually . Do you remember the Hum an Genome Project that got so
much attention back in 2003? It was the world’ s first “blueprint” of the
human genome, allowing us a never-before-seen glimpse into the
way in which Nature has created our species. It was such a
revolutionary discovery that it was compared to when  man first
landed on the moon! Anyway , I recently took a course that focused largely on the up-
and-coming directions of medical practice, and one of the highlights
was this busine ss of “genetic medicine” that I would love to touch on
with you here today . And it goes well beyond the Human Genome
Project into the realm of personalized genetic sequencing  as a
foreseeable standard of everyday medical care. Believe it or not, in the next fifty years,  it is projected that every
single patient will have their entire genome sequenced and on recordin their family doctor ’s office. This will provide all sorts of information
that will allow us, as doctors, to personally tailor medical treatments
and diagnoses in ways we never previously imagined possible. Medicine used to be based on a “one-size-fits-all” kind of
model. A patient would present with symptoms, and we would
prescribe an investigation plan, a treatment plan, and so on and so
forth on the assumption that this was most efficient and effective
method to return people to good physical health. But it turns out this
“one-size-fits-all” model really isn’t the most effective way of doing
things after all. And this is because everyone is unique, and
everyone respo nds differently . And much of this can be predicted by
a person’ s genes. For example, there was a recent feature piece in the Globe and
Mail newspaper talking about genetic treatments for cystic fibrosis.8
The article described a new drug called Kalydeco, which, for the
select 4 percent of the cystic fibrosis population with a certain
genetic mutatio n (there are different genetic variants of the disease),
could change their whole life in an instant. Normally, when a child is diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, their
quality of life is greatly diminished. However, if they have this
particular genetic variant and receive the drug, their entire life can be
turned around! So it is a powerful example of how individualized
treatment can save a life. The caveat of what some call the “miracle drug” for cystic
fibrosis, though , is that it costs $300,000 per year for one patient in
Canada. But cost relates to the novelty of a treatment, and soon
genetic-based treatments are expected to be the norm and
accessible to everyone.Another example of the use of personalized genetic medicine—
this time in the area of cancer prevention—is Angelina Jolie’s story . Magazines were covered with the news when Jolie decided to get a
double mastec tomy (both breasts prophylactically removed) because
her mother had been diagno sed with breast cancer and Jolie had
also been found to have the BRCA1 gene. This meant that, based
on her genetics, Angelina Jolie had an 87 percent chance of
developing breast cancer , and a 50 percent chance of developing
ovarian cancer .9
According to Huffington Post reporters, the amount of women
seeking breast cancer genetic screening has increased by 90
percent since Jolie went public about her procedure.5 It certainly
shows how genetic information, and a “personalized approach” to
medicine, can have huge advantages, both preventatively as well as
treatment-wise. And as it becomes more and more of a societal
norm, it will have greater and greater impacts on people. NEALE: Think of all the thing s that will be happening in your life and
in your career . . . that are happening, I should say. That is
remarkable. DR. COOPER: It totally is. But there is a reason I brought  that up. A
reason that goes far beyond the medical. My larger , over-arching obse rvation is that what we have done
in medicine—in terms of creating a focus toward “individualized”
treatment plans and getting rid of the “one-size-fits-all” model—we
have done in many other areas of life as well. We have done it in
technology , developing personalized features on our cell phones,laptops, and tablets. We have done it in real estate, personalizing
our preferences in homes, locations, furniture and décor . We have
done it in education, tailoring our courses and our intere sts to our
unique personalities, goals, and desires. But the one area it seems to me we have utterly failed to do this
is in our spirituality . Which may just be the most crucial area of all! So my question becomes: What would it take for our culture to
encourage a personal relationship with God? In other words, what
would it take to promote unique and individual expressions of the
Divinity within each of us? Spirituality seems to me to be the one area with the most
pressure to conform. This expectation exists so strong ly and so
powerfully that to even propose the idea of having a “conversation
with God,” as you did Neale, would likely be considered totally
absurd and even blasphemous. Yet it is clear to anyone who has
read even one of your book s how dramatically and beautifully that
experience changed your life. Quite simply , our unique spiritual expression is the reason we
have come to the planet. Yet it is the area that receives the least
attention and the least validation; that is, our Cultural Story
encourages everything except a personal, two-way relationship with
God. Surely , if we can devote all of that time and money to personally
sequencing each person’ s genome, we can devote even a fraction of
that to encoura ging each person to engage with and to connect with
their Highest Self spiritually . Or, is that asking too much? NEALE: The reason that very, very few people find themselves
motivated, inspired, or encouraged to develop an individuated
experience of their spirituality—a personalized two-way experience
of God—is that they have been encouraged not to, just as you
pointed out. But it’ s even greater than that. Most people are not even aware that life is primarily a spiritual
experience; that the purpose of life in the physical has to do with the
spiritual experience of each human soul. So the real larger reason that people don’t find themselves
motivated to create a person al two-way experience of God is that
they are not even clear that the purpose of life has very little to do
with their purely physical expressions. I wrote in The Only Thing That
Matters that 98 percent of the world’s people are spending 98
percent of their time on things that don’t matter . So I am shockingly observ ant of the fact that the largest
number of people by far— not 60 or 70 percent, but 85 or 90 percent
of the world’ s people—are simply engaged in day-to-day life, week-
to-week creations, month-to-month manifestations, and year-to-year
goal-setting of what they’re trying to produce in their life. They are
striving and yearning and searching for what it is they imagine they
would like to experience in order to be “successful” and happy . And
the number of people, on a percentage basis, that understand that
the whole purpose of life on Earth is to move forward the Agenda of
the Soul is astonishin gly low. Given this, people would not be
motivated to create a personal experience of God. The interesting  thing about what you’re bringing up is that, as
we increase our ability to keep people physically well, and maybe
extend their life expectancy—perhaps beyond what anyone in thismoment could even begin to imagine—the interesting thing about
that is this: Unless we lay the groundwork in the minds of human
beings that allows them to know that this creates an even larger
platform , an even more wondrous stage , upon which they can build
the outcomes that produce the experiences for which their soul
yearns —unless we cause them to see that—the longer lifespan and
the greater health maintena nce that we can produce with these
modern medical miracles will, if we’re not careful, actually work
against our whole reason for staying alive. So the irony is that the reaso n for staying alive could very well
be defeated by the fact that we are creating ways for us to stay alive
longer and longer and longer . And that’s only true in the culture of
our particular species. That is, Earthlings, people, human beings. Because we are a very , very young species. The older , more mature species of sentient beings in the
universe are very well aware  that their ability to visibly physicalize
and interact with each other and with the rest of the physical
environment that we call the known universe is the greatest gift,
precisely because it gives them an unparalleled opportunity to
complete the Agenda of their Spiritual Selves— which can only be
completed in the Realm of the Physical. Or, if you please, in the
Realm of the Relative. And so, the sentient beings elsewhere in the universe, many
species of which are far more mature than we are, are clear about
the golden treasure that is theirs . And they are living, of course, way,
way, way beyond anything we could imagine. For instance, Conversations with God made the interesting
point in its dialogue that we were  meant to live forever; that physicallife was designed to allow sentient beings to live essentially forever . And not to have to die at all, unless they actively chose to, perhaps
after several hundred years in one particular bodily expression, at
which point they could choo se to recreate themselves anew in a
different expression, for a wide variety of reasons, but having nothing
to do with typical end-of-life reasons that are faced routin ely now by
human beings on the Earth. So the fact is that we are dying at a ridiculously young age of
anywhere between 60 and 90, for the most part. We are leaving our
physical body at a very young  age if you count those who won’t even
make it that long, if you count those who get into an accident or
something, or have some illness at a very young age. But a sign of
the exponentia l increase in the maturity of our species is exactly
what you’re pointing to. We are, indeed, learning how to extend the lifespan and
increase the good health of human beings, such that the instructors
in your school are absolutely  correct: In the next fifty years we could
very well have achieved the potential to live far past the age of 100. That might one day even seem like middle age to us. Soon biogenetic medicine  is going to give us the opportunity to
actually replac e and recreate whole organs in the body . So there will
be very little reason, in fifty or sixty years, for us to have to die. And
we won’t be dying of “old age,” that’s for sure. Because we’ll be able
to replace all of our old parts, our “aging parts,” with brand new
parts. And so “old age” will no longer be a reason to expire. We still
might have accidents—that’ s of course true—and we may be so
injured that we can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. But“old age” may be a virtually unheard of reason for us to leave
physical form. That is going to create a tremendous conundrum for people. Because then they’ll have to really  start asking themselves the kinds
of questions we ask ourselves now, when we get as old as I am. Then the human species will really have to start to ask itself, you
know , “What is the point? What am I doing here for 120, 150, 170
years, or more? “What actually is the point of this physical platform that I have
found myself on?”
And surely it will be very clear when we start living to be 120,
140, or 150 years old that it obviously can’t be about get the guy, get
the girl, get the car, get the job . . . There clearly is something else
going on. And that will become patently obvious to us, as we begin
living so long that we become bored with nothing but the physical
accouterments of our life. So the extended lifespan of humanity is going to create a real
conundrum for human beings. And the question is: Will it work
against the Agenda of the Soul, or in favor of the Agenda of the
Soul? And that question will be placed before the house,  and
answered by people who are paying particular and specific attention
to not only the health of the body, but to the existence of the human
soul and its purpose and function in the overall process that we call
human life. DR. COOPER: Yes! It certainly will bring up that important question:
are we here to serve the Agenda of the Body (to gather the physicalaccouterments of life, as you put it), or are we in fact here to serve
the Agenda of the Soul? And it would certainly change our
experience dramatically , in particular our spiritual experience , if we
were to live for 150 years! I notice coming to your retreats that often people will hit that
point of spiritual inquiry around mid-life with our current lifespan. Because, as you said, the whole “to-do list’ of get the guy, get the
girl, get the car, get the house etc., is no longer a novelty. And
people come to see, maybe  around forty, fifty, or sixty: Okay , I’ve
done that, and that was wonderful . . . but maybe now there’ s
something more! So perhaps that would all be even more magnified with a
lifespan two times as long! NEALE: Imagine that! Imagin e if you’d gotten done all the things you
thought you were supposed to get done by the age of 45, or 50, or
even 60. Now what are you going to do for the next hundred years?!! DR. COOPER: (Laughs.) That’ s a really good question. NEALE: That’ s the question that medical science had better be
prepared to answer . Because docto rs are going to become more than just healers
and “life extenders”—they’re going to become life explainers. People
are going to be going to doctors saying, “Whoa,” you know , “What do
I do now for the next hundred years? I already got the guy, got the
girl, got the car , got the job . . . now what am I going to do?”And we’re going to find that the doctors who call themselves
psychiatrists, who are, of course, medical doctors, are going to have
enormously different kinds of work to do. In fact, there will be a brand
new field, as physicians in other fields begin to extend the lifespan of
human beings. Doctors of the mind—psychiatrists (I promise you, and
I predict that this will happen in your lifetime)—will develop a new
occupation, a new branch and a new field of Psychiatry. It’ll be called . . . I don’t know what they’ll call it ultimately, but my description of it
would be Spiritual Psychiatry. My understanding is that the word “psychology” is a deriv ative
of two words, “psycho” and “logy ,” which emerge from the Greek
word for soul, and the Gree k word for logic, or wisdom. So “psycho-
logy” is the wisdom or the logic of the soul. They took the soul out of “psycho-logy” when it became
“psychology” (the profession), and these days psychologists and
psychiatrists are not allowed  to bring into their treatment the word
God, unless it is at the behest and at the specific request of the
patient. But even then, they can only ask the patient what they think
about that. It is considered out of bounds for psychiatrists to propose
or suggest or explore ideas about God that the psychiatrist puts into
the space. They can only discuss what the patient brings into the
conversation. But there will be Spiritual Therapists as a branch of Psychiatry
and Psychology in the next fifty years who will be just as much a
specialist in that area as eye, ear, nose, and throat specialists, and
other physician s who specialize in certain areas of the physical body ,
are today. The metaphysical discipline will join the physical
disciplines as part of the overall medical profession. DR. COOPER: That’ s such a beautiful way of putting it—the
metaphysical will join the physical. This whole concept makes me think back to a doctor I worked
with who was a Pediatric Oncologist, meaning that she worked in the
field of childhood cancer . Many people would consider  this to be a
challenging if not a deeply saddening field to work in, given that
many of these children never make it into their adult years. But what
this doctor offered these children is a gift I’ll never forget. She was
certainly a “Doctor of the Soul,” if I could put it that way . . . someone
who merged the physical with the metaphysical,  to use your words. As we’ve talked about before, in the chapter on medical
miracles, heali ng the physical  and the metaphysical  are two sides of
the same coin. It is in the Intersection of the Physical and the
Spiritual—where God and Medicine meet—where true healing takes
place. For in situations as dramatic and life-changing as childhood
cancer , to heal the body without taking into account the spiritual
journey of the individual would be to consider just one small piece of
the pie. And this is what separated this particular physician from
anyone else I’ve worked with. She took children, many of whom
were in a “tragic situation” when we consider life from a purely
physical point of view , and she understood at an intuitive level how to
nurture these children’ s souls. I remem ber being so touched, Neale, by the way she walked
through the world. Every week, she would get the kids together and
volunteer her time for a “group outing.” Sometimes it would be an
outdoor activity like going for a walk in the woods, or having a picnic,and other times it would be an indoor activity like arts and crafts or
watching a movie with pizza. All of the kids would get together with
one another , but the rule was that they could not talk about cancer . Each one of them had cancer , and each one of them had been
enduring challenging health  battles, but for the durat ion of the
evening they got to experience being normal, regular children, free
from the psychological burdens of chronic disease. All they were to do was to “hang out” with one anoth er, to
spend quality time, and to celebrate their gifts. So every activity they
would do—whether it was arts and crafts, whether it was walking in
nature, no matter what it was—this doctor would point out to them
their talents and their successes. And she would celebrate the gifts
that they each had in this lifetime. And whether your life is 7 years or
17 years or 70 years long, to me in that moment I felt like gosh, it
almost doesn’t make a difference. Because what she was teaching these children was to live a
spiritual life in the time they were here. And rather than feeling like
their life was “worse off,” these kids were actually some of the
happiest childr en I’d ever met! Every time they saw this particular
doctor , they walked into the room with a smile on their face and with
joy pouring out of their hearts. And I think it’s because , although
these kids had a fraction of time on the planet compare d with our
current life expectancy , she was teaching them how to live in
alignment with the Agenda of the Soul. So while their bodies may have been “dying,” their souls were
not. And to that degree, their lives were . . . NEALE:  . . . complete. DR. COOPER: Yes! Their lives were complete. And if this isn’t true
healing, then I don’t know what is. To me, it illustrates perfectly what we’ve been talking about in
this conversation—and in the whole book, actually . That the whole
point of even having a physi cal life is as a vehicle to express what
our soul desires to experienc e, which can only be experienced in the
Realm of the Relative,  as you said several minutes ago. And this story really illustrates to me how , regardless of the time
we have in this particular lifetime—in this particular physical
expression—there is always enough time to complete the Agenda of
the Soul , when we create the opportunity for our gifts to shine and to
remember the real reason we’re here . However , it is very true that if we were around for 120, 150, or
170 years, it would certainly be much harder not to contemplate the
Agenda of the Soul, and not to consider the whole point for us being
here on the planet. So having  a longer lifespan would definitely pose
the question in a more vivid, a more noticeable, and a more powerful
way than it ever has been before. NEALE: It would pose the question in a way that is essentially
unavoidable. DR. COOPER : Exactly . On the topic of expanded life spans, then,
may we switch gears for just a moment? NEALE: Sure. What is your question? DR. COOPER: I am wondering about your thoughts on the idea of
freezing a body in hopes of bringing it back years down the road? I
know this soun ds totally science fiction, but it is actually a real thing. And it is a remarkable proced ure. The medical term for it is cryonics,
or cryopreservation.10
What it entails is having your body or your brain “frozen” after
you pass away , in hopes that you may be “unfrozen” and brought
back to life years down the road (when medical science has caught
up and “created a cure,” so to speak, for whatever illness you
passed away from). I recently read an interview with Larry King talking about how
he was hoping to be “cryopreserved,” or frozen, after he died, so that
he can hopefully come back one day .11
I’m curious what you think of this, Neale . . . and whether it’s
even necessary, or for that matter advisable, from a spiritual point of
view . . . NEALE: Well it’s unnecessary , given the Agenda of the Soul, but it is
not necessarily undesirable or somehow spiritually unworthy . It’s unnecessary in the sense that the soul can achieve what it
wishes to achieve, what it seeks to achieve, through the multiplicity
of lifetimes—the endless number of lifetimes—that the soul,
throughout eternity , may experience. But if the mind is particularly
attracted to and fond of a particular expression in physical form,
there’ s no reason in the world why, if it can be done, that a person
should or could not be brought back to physical life after such aprocedure. And such an eventuality would certainly not inhibit in any
way the continued and further evolution of the soul. So it’s no more deleterious, and no more damagin g or
obstructive to the overall process of evolution, than the opposite of
that, which would be suicide, or the intentional ending of one’ s life. Conversations with God has made it very clear to me that the
intentioned ending of one’s life is not a spiritual offense. It’s not “held
against” a soul (nothing, in fact, is), and it in no way inhibits or holds
the soul back from its ability to continue to evolve, and to create and
express larger and larger versions of itself. So if ending  one’s life is
not considered at some level spiritually inappropriate, or non-
beneficial, then certainly extending  one’s life—by whatever means,
including being brought back after being frozen—likewise would not
be spiritually inappropriate or ipso facto non-beneficial. I think what would happen, though—my prediction would be—
that I would eventually beco me so complete with being Neale, as
Larry might eventually become so complete with being Larry King,
that he would willingly . . . and this is the irony of it . . . I suspect that,
should the miracle actually come to pass that people can have their
bodies frozen and then brought back to life when medic al science
catches up to what caused their death and reverse the process, the
irony is that a large number of those people would then, I suspect,
eventually choose euthanasia—the deliberate ending  of their life! And there’ s the irony of it. And I mean ultimately . Not as soon as they woke up and got
unfrozen. They ’d say, “Oh wow! It worked! Here I am!” But after a
while, the irony is that the very people who jumped over great
hurdles and contorted the whole experience such that they wouldfreeze themselves in order to extend their lives, those very people
might very well then ultimately voluntarily euthanize themselves. Because they would get to the point where they would say, “Oh, my
gosh, you mean I’m going be Larry King for the rest of all eternity? I
don’t think so. ”
Not because there’ s anything  wrong with being Larry King, or
Neale Donald Walsch, for all of eternity . But we would run out of
original or new ways to express in this particular form; ways that
continued to stimulate and inspire the Self through the process. You know , if we think that marriages can sometimes go sour
and go south and get boring after being married for fifty, sixty, or
seventy years, imagine being married to yourself  for 150 years! DR. COOPER:  (Laughs.) It’s such a fascinating perspective that you
have! NEALE: Yes, so I think that what would happen is that the Larry Kings
of the world would eventually become bored, out of their sense of
Completion! Okay , I’ve done all the thing s that I could do. And I’ve done it
over and over again, and I think, you know , I want a new pair of
shoes! So for the same reason that we go into our closet and throw out
the old things, even though a lot of them are still perfectly wearable
—we send them to the second-hand store, or to Goodwill —because
even though they are perfectly wearable,  we are tired of wearing
them. They haven’t worn out, we’re just tired of wearing them “out.”So they stay in the closet for six years, having not been worn out in
ages. And we would feel the same way about our body . We haven’t
“worn it out,” especially with this new process where we can be
brought back to life after being frozen. However , we would then go
into the “closet” of our mind and realize that, “Okay , this body hasn’t
worn out—it still can function—but I’m turning it in. I’m turning it in. Because I want a new body! I want a new physical expe rience, just
like I want a new jacket. I’ve had this one for many years, and I’m
done with it.”
So I think that one of the great adventures for humanity is the
“unexperienced” and the “not yet done.” I think that’s true, by the
way, of all sentient beings. We strive for that which has not yet been
done and that which has not yet been experienced. I think that sentient beings are by nature explorers, expa nding
into the farthest reaches of their physical universe, and the farthest
reaches of their metaphysical experience. Both! To, as Gene
Roddenberry said, “Go where no man has gone before.” And I think
that we would be squashing that impulse if we had to continue going
where we’ve gone before, over and over and over again, forever and
ever and ever . And that would not feel very good to us. Ultimately , the fundamenta l impulse and the fundamental
instinct of life itself is to renew itself in new forms. And this would
overtake the desire to remain in our old form. And we would choose
euthanasia to resolve the dilemma . DR. COOPER:  I find this discussion so fascinating, because I agree
with you that all human beings do have that fundamenta l instinct tochange, to evolve, and to grow into grander and grander versions
and expressions of the Self. And I agree we would not be satisfied
for 150 years to repeat the same story , to repeat the same
expressions, and we would intuitively—and at the soul level—seek
that expansion. Yet it’s ironic, because at the same time—and I don’t know if
this is a matter of a feeling of control  or what it is—it seems that
when the outcome appears to be “out of our control,” such as our
death, we suddenly have the desire to cling desperately to what we
have. And it seems to me that this is what leads to the desire to be
frozen and to come back. So perhaps it is more of an issue of feeling “in control.” And
when we can understand that our soul is willingly choosing
everything , including the time and the place of our death, perhaps
we can move forward into the next expression of ourselve s with less
resistance, and more joy . NEALE: I think that ultimately The Greatest Awaken ing is the
moment when  we realize that being “out of control” is the ultimate
expression of being “in control.”
 
DR. COOPER: And why do you say that? (Pause) I’m very, very
curious . . . NEALE: What I mean is that I feel more in control of my own life
when I’m out of control of what’ s going on in my exterior world than
in the moments where I thought that I really had a certain level of
control. Becau se when I’m “out of control,” the level of personalcontrol that I have is magnified, in the sense that I am controlling my
individual expe rience so broadly that I can literally be “out of control”
of day-to-day circumstances and events, and not have that condition
of being “out of control” control me . When I do not allow being “out of control” to control me, I am
then in ultimate control. I get to decide what the exter ior events of life
mean. I become the God of my own Universe. DR. COOPER: That makes total sense. The moment we maintain
personal contr ol, regardless  of what “out of control” events are
occurring around us, is the moment that nothing can then “throw us
off our game.” We no longer allow fear to hold us back in the creative
expression of our soul’ s agenda. So perhaps the greatest demonstration of control is to take a
situation that appears “out of our control” and to no longer let it
negatively af fect our internal world. Is that what you’re saying? NEALE: Precisely. Not only do we not let it negatively affect our
internal world, we actually cause it to be a magnificent aspect of that
internal world. We say to the part of ourselves that sees the outer
world out of control: “Watch this. Watch me control my experience of
the out-of-control-ness.”
If that isn’t Divinity , I don’t know what is. We are acknowledging
that we have created, collaboratively , the apparent  out-of-control-
ness, producing the perfect Contextual Field within which to
announce and declare, express and experience, become and fulfillthe next grandest version of the greatest vision ever we held about
Who W e Are. DR. COOPER:  Gosh, you almost make me want to call forth “out-of-
control-ness” in order to experience what you’re talking about right
now. It sounds almost like fun, like a challenge. NEALE: Well, in fact, most of us do that. We’re just doing it
unconsciously . Why do you suppose we’ve created a world that
seems to be out of control? It’s not that we don’t have the ability to control it. With the
miracles that humanity has been able to create in technology , in
medicine, in science, even in certain political areas and so forth, and
social areas as well, we have the ability right now to bring certain
areas of our collective experience on Earth under control
immediately . It’s not an accident that we’re not doing that. It’s not consciously happening, but at some unconscious level
we may very well be using this device specifically as an evolutionary
tool with which to control our expression and experience—an
evolutionary driver , as futurist and visionary Barbara Marx Hubbard
would view it, calling forth, out of necessity , our ability to know
ourselves as Divine within a space that is, presumably , at the human
level, very “unDivine.”
It’s said that necessity is the mother of invention. Yet in order
for us to invent , it is necessar y for us to create necessity . And if what
we want to do is re-invent ourselves —or, if you please, recreate
ourselves anew in the next grandest version of the greatest vision
ever we held about Who We Are—we would have to collectivelyproduce circumstances allowing us . . . indeed, requiring  us . . . to do
so. And so, it’s not a surprise to me that humanity has allow ed its
exterior experie nce in the world at large to appear to be totally out of
control. Yet we are now doing this in such a way that, if we are not
careful, we could lose control of our “out-of-control-ness.” This is not
unlike losing control of a controlled fire. Now that doesn’t mean it has to continue this way forever . I
believe we’re going to go to the next level soon. In the next 50 to 100
years we’re going to go to the level where we allow chaos to
continue to be part of our outward experience, but not at such a level
that it eliminates the possib ility of our outward experience itself
continuing. The fact that we are now allowing our deliberately, if
unconsciously, created chaos to actually threaten our own ability to
survive in the physical is a simple reflection of our immaturity as a
species. We don’t know how to use the tool. So, in a sense, we’re
like children playing with matches. And the fire we have started is
threatening to get away from us. But deeply wise and very mature species of sentient beings
have learned how to contain the chaos without retaining the danger
of self-a nnihilation as a result of it—and that’s the direction in which
we are headed now . Such highly evolved beings have learned the art
of Creative Chaos. Not unlike a juggler , who throws plates in the air
deliberately , but never drops one. DR. COOPER: So, another question . . . something that I believe
everyone reading this will want to hear your thoughts on, Neale. Itmay just be the most pressing question facing humanity at this time
in our species’ evolution. How hopeful are you that humanity will turn
things around before our planet becomes unsustainable to live on? NEALE: If we don’t make some very important and significant and
dramatic alterations and changes, it will be without question
impossible for this species to continue in the ways it has been living. We’re dropping plates all over the place. And it may be almost
impossible for us to continu e living at all in this environment. Too
much broken glass. So if necessity is the mother of invention, life as we now know
it, in our prese nt environment, will probably be dramatically changed
and altered for the better in the next 40 to 50 years. Indeed, it will
have  to be, if human ity is to continue in its present expression on the
Earth. I mean, we don’t even have enough water! They’re already
trying to figure out how to live in California without water. They’re
crying for help. We use purified, clean wate r out of our taps, that has been
filtered by the city, or some other system, and we wash cars with it. We take the hose and we wash down our driveway with drinking
water . And we are beginning to realize that we don’t have enough
drinking water to do that. Right now in California they recently passed a new regulation
that you may not use purified water to wash down your driveway , to
water your lawn, or to clean your car. You may not use purified
drinking water . Go down to the ocean and get some salt water that
you can’t drink. Fair enough. But don’t let us catch you using thewater that people are trying to preserve to drink, because we can no
longer af ford to do that. That’ s just one of one hund red and fifty areas of life that will
really be dram atically change d in the next half century . I hold out the
hope that significant change s in all of our self-defeating  behaviors
are possible. I observe that maturity and growth in a species are
exponential processes . That is, they don’t proceed along a 1-2-3-4-5
path, they proceed on a 2-4-8-16-32 basis, with that kind of ratio. We could, in fact, before that fifty-year span is over—in fact,
considerably before that span is over—reach the level of spiritual and
emotional maturity to turn certain behaviors around. To stop
conducting underground nuclear tests, for instance, and other
activities that shift the tectonic plates such that we have earthquakes
someplace every 45 hours. I’m sitting here now in the state of Oklahoma as I’m talking to
you, and the state government here made a shocking announcement
two weeks ago. The people of Oklahoma, half of them, could hardly
believe it. The state government publicly admitted that two things are
true in Oklahoma. First, that there has been a 360 percent increase
in the number of shakes, temblors, and earthquakes in Oklahoma in
the past eight years. And second, that the reason  for it is the amount
of fracking and drilling that takes place in Oklahoma as we seek to
harvest the oil beneath the earth. The State Governor said, in essence, Okay, we get it. WE are
causing the problem. And the government of Texas may be very close
to being able to acknowledge that as well. It’s just a question of what
we are able to look at honestly, to acknowledge in ourselves with
regard to our own behaviors.It’s one thing for the government to acknowledge it, and quite
another thing for the man on the street, the average person, to admit
it. Yet in the next 20 or 30 years, I think we will see an exponential
increase in the maturation of our species—s uch that many truths
about our human behaviors will be obvious to many more  of us, and
most of our self-destructive behaviors may be altered before we get
to that 50-year limit beyond which it might not be possible to put a
halt to the destruction we have started. On the other hand, if some of our behaviors are not altere d, life
as we know it will disappear from the face of the Earth. But I am very hopeful. I may not live long enough to see it,
because I don’t think that biogenetics is going to catch up with
events fast enough to keep me alive that long (laughs). But it’s okay. Maybe I’ll come back as a new baby and experience a better life
than we’ve ever had before on Earth. DR. COOPER: So what would you say to anyone reading this who is
in tune with the Conversations with God ideas, who wants to see
these changes  occur , and who believes in the potential of humanity
to turn this planet around? What would you say in terms of how one
person can make a difference? NEALE: There ’s only one thing that I believe is effective and, to
respond to your question, that we could do. That is to enhance and
to expand the expression of the Self as a living, breathing, model of
Divinity , so gloriously that simply being Who We Are would set an
example that could no longer be ignored.That would cause hundreds,  thousands perhaps, maybe  even
millions— great numbers of other people— to look at us and say,
“What is it that you know that I don’t know? What is it that you have
that I don’t have, and how can I get it? How can I experience that?”
And I would suggest we begin by not telling others that they’re
“doing it wrong”—living their lives wrong, experiencing their careers
wrong, handli ng their health wrong, eating wrong, whatever . Because in my observation, this doesn’t work. We have to model  the
behaviors we wish to encourage in others. Gandhi put this perfectly:
Be the change you wish to see. You know who was one of the greatest changers of people’ s
individual lifestyles? Jack LaLanne. He was in such good health
himself that he looked at the age of 70 and 75 and 80 as if he was
50, 55, and 60. He modeled such extraordin ary understanding of
what keeps the body physica lly healthy  that everyone else went to
him and said, “Okay , okay , fair enough. T ell us what you know .”
And the same is true of people who have advanced thems elves
spiritually and metaphysically . The Paramahansa Y ogananda’ s of the
world. The Thich Nhat Hanh’ s of the world. The Pema Chödrön’ s of
the world. The Byron Katie’ s and Eckhart T olle’s of the world. Now imagine combining the two! Imagine a whole race of
beings functioning at that level, physically and metaphysically . Do
you think they would take care of the Earth on which they live any
less wondrously than they care for themselves? So the answer is not going to be, what can I do? Can I form a
club, can I join an organization, can I create  an organization or start
a move ment or give speeches or get on a soap box? Can I sendpetitions aroun d, or what kind of doingness can I engage in to fend
off this impending end-of-life-as-we-know-it scenario? Don’t get me wrong. Those can be helpful things to do to assist
in awak ening consciousness, both in oneself and in others. But
ultimately , the end of life as we know it on this planet can only be
averted by beingness. Those activities I just spoke of, those calls to
action, must be directed at changing people’ s state of being. When
that is changed, what we are all doing will automatically change. What must change is what people believe. What they believe
about Who They Are. What they believe about each other . What they
believe about life, its purpo se, and how it works. And what they
believe about God. When  that changes, everything  changes. People’ s behaviors are created by their beliefs. So I would say to all of those who are finding value in the
Conversations with God material: choos e to move through the space
of Life at such  a high level of beingness that the glory and the
wonder of Who You Are and How you Behave will suddenly become
deeply desirab le. Then others will pay attention to you! (Not that you
are being who you are being to get them to pay attention you. You
are being what you are being to get you to pay attention to you! But
others paying attention to the attention that you are paying to who
you are and how you are behaving will just happen automatically .) Then you will tell them that this is who they are also, and how they
can behave also. And in this you will give people back to
themselves. This is the invitation that Conversations with God has offered to
all of us.You won’t have to get on any soapbox and give any speeches,
or try to find any podium or place from which to share the wondrous
message of who we are and why we are all here. People will come
flocking to you because of the way you are acting, because of the
way you are being, because of the way you are moving through the
world. “Okay ,” they will say, “there’ s clearly something you
understand that I don’t understand, the understanding of which
would change everything.”
And, you know , it’s been this way from the beginning. The
people who change the world —and there have been those who have
done it alread y. I mean, the world has changed a lot in the past
several thousand years—and the people who have changed
humanity’ s experience of itself have not done so by doing
something, nearly as much as by being something. They have done
so by who they were  being. That’ s true of Lao Tzu, that’s true of Buddha, Moses, Christ,
Mohammed, and other spiritual masters. Mary , the mother of Jesus,
is surely held up as such a Master . So are Hildegard of Bingen,
Beatrice of Nazareth, Julian  of Norwich, St. Catherine of Genoa,
Saint Elizabeth , Joan of Arc, Birgittta of Sweden, Melania the Elder
and, more contemporarily , H.P. Blavatsky , Annie Besa nt, Mother
Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Mātā Amṛtānandamayī Devī, and Mother
Meera. All of their demonstrations have been exactly the same. They
have demonstrated their highest idea of Divinity . DR. COOPER : So it’s about being , not doing. As Communion with
God says, “Be the light that truly lights the world.”
 NEALE: This is, of course, the only reason to be alive. You see, We Are All One. So if we want to express and create
the maximum health—physic al and metaphysical, spiritual and non-
spiritual, so to speak, of the “single body ,” of the one thing we are—
the best thing we can do is to be the healthiest part of that body—not
run around killing all the rest of the body , then saying “You’re not
doing it right.”
I’ve learned that even in my own family , and in my own
organization. I spent the first few years telling everyone around me
how they’re not doing it right. “You’re not thinking positively , you’re
not approachin g the problem in the most efficient and effective way,
your attitude is hurting you, blah-blah-blah.” And that got me
nowhere. And I finally realiz ed this. I realized that it was creating
more negativity , actually , and a reluctance to change on the part of
other people. So then I bega n to pay more  attention to my own expres sion,
and my own experience . And I began trying to live more  fully into the
messages that I was inviting them to look more closely at. And I
would never claim or assert that I have somehow “mad e it,” that I
have “gotten there,” that I no more demonstrate those old behaviors. Because those who know me know better . But I have improved. I’ve
shifted my approach, trying more and more to be the change I wish
to see. And others see, I think , the changes I am trying to make. And
they’re making them as well. We’re all here to help each other . We’re all here to lead each
other back home. And we don’t lead by saying, “I’m doing everything
right. Follow me.” We lead by saying, “We all can improve. I’ll go
first.” 
DR. COOPER: I love those thoughts. I love that advice. And I’m
going to start that right now . Thank you for those ideas. NEALE: Y ou’re very welcome.Part Two
 
•
 
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERSThis section contains questions that both of this book’ s authors
have heard from many sources through the years. These oft-
received inquiries have never been answered by both at the same
time, however . Until now . Following is the result of asking each
the same question, then placing their answers side-by-side,
comparing  their medical and spiritual points of view . The questions here were first answered
from a medical perspective by Brit Cooper , M.D.,
and then from a spiritual perspective
 by Neale Donald W alsch. Question #1
 
ASSI STED LIVING FACILITIES
 
 
My mother is suffering from dementia. W e can afford to place her in
an assisted living facility , but question whether we are being selfish,
or acting in her best interests. DR. COOPER: This is a question that many people face with their
aging parents, especially as modern medicine develops to the pointwhere people begin to live longer and longer . When we look at why assist ed living facilities were created in
the first place, we see that they offer numerous benefits. These
types of care facilities were meant to enhance our relationship with
our aging loved one. They have staff who can look after the basic
needs of the elderly—be it food preparation, eating, bathing,
toileting, exercise, medication administration, and socialization with
others so that our aging parents do not begin to feel isolated,  as so
many older people do when they are no longer physically able to get
out and do things during the day . Assisted living  facilities are also able to offer various levels of
medical support. The nursing staff can look after things such as
catheters (tubin g to help with urination) among other daily tasks, and
physicians visit seniors’ care facilities regularly , so your mother
would have easy access to medical care. We can see that in an ideal world , assisted living facilities would
in all likelihood  be a win-win option for both you and your aging loved
one. You would be able to focus on a heart-to-heart connection
without having  to worry about their physical needs being taken care
of, nor about their overall medical care and supervision. However, the great tragedy in many of today’s assisted living
facilities is that we often miss out on the gifts that elders bring. Having worked in the medical profession, and having made dozens
of trips into seniors’ care homes, I have seen before my own eyes
much of the sadness, the loneliness, and often the sense of isolation
—the opposite of what we were trying to achieve—occur in all too
many of these facilities.I have walked into these places and, more times than not,
literally felt, energetically , the sense that people were wishing they
were somewhere else. I will ask people, “Do you have any visitors
coming today?” And more than half of the patients have  said that
they rarely get visitors . . . not even their own family members . And
they will say point blank that they dislike being there. So it is no surprise to me that many of them sink into a state of
depression (with a staggering 44 percent rate of depression or
depressive symptoms among the “institutionalized elder ly”),12 and
many of them even lose the impetus or drive to socialize with those
around them. Instead, all too many people recluse in their small
rooms, wishing  the hours and days away , and spending the final
moments of their lives in a way that is far from the most meaningful. As a society , we no longer value the presence of elders as we
used to, and to our loss. Elders used to be deeply respected and
cherished for the wisdom they offered to the human “tribe.” And
Conversations with God makes  it clear in the first few chapters of
Book 3 that this is how any society of highly evolved beings would
live. They would celebrate and honor their elders and, in doing so,
would facilitate people findin g great meaning in the final stages of
their lives, precisely  because they would see themselves as
essential parts of the community , valued for the gifts they bring. Given that this is no longer done at a cultural level, it is up to us
now to look out for our loved one’s best interest. How can we do
this? Looking at your mother ’s case specifically , I would suggest that
if you do have the financial wherewithal to support her in an assistedliving facility, and if you feel that this is the best option at this point—
which it sounds like you do— then I would do it. I would perhaps start
off by spending some time with her looking around at different
places, so that the two of you can choose something that feels like
“home” to her. (Unless, of course, her dementia is so severe that she
is unable to help in the decision-making process.) Once you have  selected a new “home” for your mother , I would
do my best to bring an excited and optimistic energy to the situation. Rather than feeling “guilty” (or “selfish”) about it, I would release
those emotions and instead spend time thinking of creative ways that
you could make this “next chapter of her life” (moving into the
assisted living facility) as positive as possible for both of you. When it comes to the idea of being “selfish,” Conversations with
God makes it clear that we cannot give to others what we do not give
to ourselves; or, to quote from Arianna Huffington’ s book Thrive , we
need to “secure [our] own oxygen mask first,” before we are
effectively able to help others.13 If caring for your mother on your own
has become burdensome to the point that it does not feel good to
you anymore—where the gift of giving to anoth er becomes no longer
joyful—then it is time to make a change. Also, as you navigate this period of transition, know that it is
entirely possible that your relationship with your mother could be
even more meaningful when she is in an assisted living facility . For in
giving yourself some breathing space, and in diminishin g the work
you need to do caring for her, you will then be able to “show up” in a
way where you can maximiz e the joy and connection between the
two of you, as well as with the rest of your family .In closing, I invite you to see this transition that is occurr ing in
both of your lives not as a sadness  or a let-down , or not for that
matter as a “selfish choice,”  but rather , as an opportunity  and a
blessing  as you continue to show your mother how much you love
and care for her, even and especially as she moves into an assisted
living facility . NEALE: I have lived through this family dilemma, although at a bit of
a distance. My wife’s father suffered from dementia, and his
symptoms became so severe, with his behavior so affected, that his
wife of 50 years had no choice but to place him in a memory care
facility less than two months after their golden wedding anniversary . It was not a situation where  caring for my wife’s Dad on her
own had become burdensom e to the point where it “did not feel
good” to her anymore—where “the gift of giving to another  became
no longer joyful”—it was a situation in which the gift of giving to
another became no longer possible. I don’t think that anybody removes a loved one from their own
home and places them in a care facility because the joy has gone
out of caring for them. I observe that this happens because the
capability  of caring for them has been exceeded by the patient ’s
needs. As you’ve pointed out here doctor , one person, or even two, in
the home cannot provide the ongoing, minute-to-minute care that a
multi-person staff at a memo ry care facility is called upon  to provide
—and I want to add that this is a staff that, not insignificantly , rotates
and has time off from attending to the continual need of the patient
for highly personalized attention; a staff that also does not have alifetime of deep personal attachment, and the resulting unremitting
grief and loss, to deal with emotionally . . . which we all know can
have an enormous ef fect on any person’ s energy reserves. The loss experienced by family members of dementia and
Alzheimer ’s patients can often exceed the loss experienced when a
loved one dies. As devastating as the death of a beloved is, that
experience of deep loss is not visited over and over again for weeks,
months, or even years, as is the case faced by family members of
someone whose memory and basic living skills are slipping away
inch-by-inch right in front of them—and then, more rapidly , mile by
agonizing mile. The pain of seeing a loved one in a casket, while deepl y and
sadly impacting, often cannot compare to the stunning, cold-
compress-on-the-chest experience of a wife or child seeing a lifelong
loved one in front of them who suddenly does not know who they
are. Adding to this monumental loss is that the family member in the
second instance will then, eventually , have to embrace the physical
departure of their loved one through death as well— and knows it. My
father-in-law died in the memory care facility . To directly respond to the question above, then . . . I believe
that people who deeply love another are rarely , if ever, acting
“selfishly” by moving their beloved into a care facilit y. On the
contrary , it breaks their heart  to do so. From a spiritual point of view,
this is a loving  thing to do if adequate care in the home is no longer
possible, given  the substantial risk to the well-being of the patient
and to the primary caregiver as well of keeping the patient at home. The greatest sadness in human society is that at a time when
reports of memory loss conditions are reaching epidemicproportions, the cost of providing care for patients suffering from
such conditions is skyrocketi ng along with it, rendering it more and
more difficult to offer patients  and their families the assis tance they
so desp erately need, and robbing the surviving member of the family
of whatever might have been set aside for their own senior years. I cannot even begin to imagine how families that cannot afford
in-home or facility-based care for their loved ones with memory loss
can cope—and how their tragedy is often doubled through the
impact such a situation has on the health and well-being of
caregivers, many of whose lives are shortened by the impact of the
stress and strain placed upon them. What the highest expression  of true spirituality calls for is the
creation of a society whose members are committed to care for each
other , and to provid e care for those who need it most when they
most need it. And while some countries and their citizens have
compassionately done so (and should be honored for having made
such choices), millions upon millions on Earth still have no access to
modern or adequate health care. We should not be living in a world where caring, compassi onate
assistance is available and offered only to those for whom it is
financially within reach. No one of good conscience could agree that
this speaks well for our culture and our species. Yet there are those who say it is simply a problem of how far
the world’ s financial resources can reach. Can humanity afford to
offer health care to all who need it, regardless of ability to pay? The answer is, of course, yes, if we simply , as a culture, shifted
our priorities. Our collective governments spend more on their
militaries to protect what their citizens fear losing, or don’t wish tooffer, than it would cost to feed, clothe, and provide health care to
the entire world’s population several times over. That is the mark of
an enormously selfish society and an obviously primitive species. (And no, that is not a judgment. It is a simple, but sad,
observation. )Question #2
 
IS THERE A “SOU L LESSON”
IN DEMENTIA? What possible lesson can a person be learning when suffering from
dementia? (Or , is the lesson for the caregivers?) DR. COOPER: I do not hold the point of view that we are here on the
Earth to “learn any lessons” spiritually . Rather , I agree with the way
Conversations with God puts it . . . that we are here to demonstrate
and to create  the highest version of Who We Are, and that
challenging situations (and adverse medical diagnoses) are nothing
more than platforms upon which we define ourselves.
Where_God_and_Medicine_Meet-_Neale_Donald_Walsch.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        They gently handed him to his mother, where she shared a precious
moment with him before he quietly passed in her arms. However, the remarkable thing is that, despite the outcome
(which many would consider to be negative, and certainly a “failure”
by any medica l standard), the healing  that took place in that room
was both breathtaking and transformative. It was unlike anything I
had ever seen in my life. These specialists are the only two doctors I have seen let down
their walls and cry with a patient. They shared in the sadness of the
moment and, although they did nothing to change the outcome,
simply their presence and their way of being was healing. I know it
was healing. For it created an environment for that mother and for
that family where, despite the tragic nature of what occu rred, they
felt like they were not alone. And they felt like their experience was, Ithink to some degree, healed. or at least faster on the road to
being healed. However, I have never seen this sort of “holistic approach” to
healing include d in our medic al training. I have observed it from time
to time—and I have huge admiration for those physicians who take
their work to that metaphysical level —but I would absolutely say that
it is something they do of their own accord. NEALE: Do you think there’ s a place for it, or do you think that there
should be— I should restate that question—do you think there should
be, and would you recommend that there absolutely be, a place in
modern medica l training, in preparing a person to be a physician, for
metaphysical knowledge and practices. DR. COOPER: Personally, I absolutely think that there should be a
place for it in the medical profession and in medical school training. And I can’t even count the number of patients who would agree with
me. I say that beca use so many people have been dissatisfied with
their experie nce in the healthcare system—and, perhaps
surprisingly, the largest number of “complaints” are not about the
medical treatments themselves, but rather about the lack of mental,
emotional, and spiritual care that accompanies them. I could be
wrong about this, but it has certainly been my observation. So yes, in answer to your question, I absolutely think there is a
place for what we could loosely call spirituality  in modern medical
schools. And there are a few reasons I think this. First of all, the current medical model is based much more on
quantity of life rather than quality of life. But I think what people are
really interested in—what’ s at the heart of the matter, so to speak—is
healing their quality of life. In other words, of having an experience
here on the planet that is truly fulfilling. Which makes perfect sense
when you think about it. I mean, the whole reason that people are
showing up at your retreats is because their experience of life is not
fulfilling, whether they have a medical condition or not. And so I think every single profession, medicine included,
should prioritize bringing forth that spiritual and metaphysical aspect,
which taps us back into the real reason we’re here. What’ s the point
of staying alive, of preserving life, if we’re not going to do it in a way
that is fulfilling. I think all too many patients are discharged from the
hospital in a state that is so-called “cured,” but is really lacking in the
patient’ s own fulfillment. I would  be hard-pressed to call that a “cure”
when it comes to the real reason that we’re here on Earth. NEALE: But the challenge in the medical profession is that if we
bring metaphy sics into the physics of medicine, we are stymied,
because the question becomes: which metaphysical model, which
belief system, which spiritual thought system, should prevail, should
be taught, in a medical school. Do we declare  that a thing that’s called God exists. Or, do we
use a reduction ist approach and simply say, “Let’s not call it God, but
let’s all acknowledge at least from a scientific point of view that
there’ s such a thing as energy in the Universe. that All of Life is
made up of energy, and that this energy can be manip ulated and
focused with predictable and consistent results. ”If we believe that, should we have a course in medical school
that teaches how we can focus this universal energy that we call Life
with predictable and consistent results. Should we have courses in
our medical schools about how those results can be created and
tabulated and measured and turned into some equally predictable
outcome, as we do with how we measure other outcomes in the
medical field. This raises just a bazillion interesting questions about how you
would insert metaphysics into medical training, and the inability to
answer those questions is no doubt why it hasn’t become part of
medical training. So ironically enough, membe rs of one of the most critical and
crucial occupations on the Earth—the occupation of those  who keep
us alive, and those who heal our most challenging physical
conditions—are not receiving any training whatsoever in the one
area of human expression that could be the most powerful single
area af fecting their physical and mental condition.
The outcome was tragic, but the doctors showed compassion and cried with the patient, creating an environment where the family felt not alone.
What was the outcome of the medical treatment, and how did the doctors react?
Dr. Cooper believes that there should be a place for metaphysical knowledge in medical school training, as it can greatly impact a patient's mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being.
What is Dr. Cooper's opinion on the inclusion of metaphysical knowledge in medical training?
According to Dr. Cooper, the purpose of medicine should be to help people have a fulfilling life, not just to extend their physical life.
What is the purpose of medicine, according to Dr. Cooper?
The irony is that extending human lifespan could lead to people questioning the purpose of their life and potentially feeling unfulfilled, which could lead to a crisis of identity.
What is the irony of the situation, according to Dr. Cooper?
Dr. Cooper suggests that it is a loving and selfless act, and that it's essential to focus on the caregiver's well-being and provide adequate care for the patient.
What is Dr. Cooper's advice to someone who is considering placing their aging parent in an assisted living facility?