In addition to the topic Resources, use the chart you completed and questions you answered in the Topic 3 about “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” as the basis for your responses in this assignment. 

Answer the following questions about a patient’s spiritual needs in light of the Christian worldview.

  1. In 200-250 words, respond to the following: Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James, or would that mean a disrespect of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale.
  2. In 400-500 words, respond to the following: How ought the Christian think about sickness and health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is truly honoring the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in James’s care?
  3. In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the physician assist Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others involved in his care?

Remember to support your responses with the topic Resources.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Benchmark Information

Essivi Legzim Badakou

Grand Canyon University

PHI 413

1/12/2022

Applying the Four Principles: Case Study

Part 1: Chart (60 points)

Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.

Medical Indications

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences

Autonomy

· In the case of patients, medical diagnoses are made in order to identify healthcare issues.

· Using diagnostic data to determine treatment options is one way to ensure non-maleficence and avoid causing harm to patients.

· The parents and physicians work in James’ best interests with beneficence.

· James’ parents are interested in pursuing the healing option that they believe is best for him.

· They are not harming him in any way because of their trust in prayer (Carr & Winslow 2017).

· They regard a doctor’s advice as a guarantee that he will get better.

· Patients should be able to make their own judgments without being influenced by any version.

· James is only a young boy. As a result, it is the parents’ responsibility to make decisions for him (Gillon, 2018).

· James does not object to the decisions, indicating that he accepts them.

· The doctor does not disagree with the patents’ decision, but rather serves as a guide to them.

Quality of Life

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features

Justice and Fairness

· The characteristics of the treatment choices for patients are linked to quality of life.

· James on dialysis is expected to enhance his health compared to his previous state.

· There is a debate as to whether the brother should give the kidney or rely on faith for James to recover.

· Parents must meet with James to discuss the possibility of receiving a kidney donation from their sibling.

· In medical decisions, features of justice include legal, familiar setting, and social considerations. 

· When it comes to medical matters, James’ parents are guided by their religion.

· As a matter of justice, parents are prepared to donate their kidneys rather than involve their other son.

· They can enable volunteers since only their son may contribute in the family.

©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Part 2: Evaluation

Answer each of the following questions about how the four principles and four boxes approach would be applied:

1. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how would each of the principles be specified and weighted in this case? Explain why. (45 points)

When it comes to either research or clinical treatment, medical professionals are bound by strong ethical guidelines. Medical ethics can be consulted in times of uncertainty. Respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and fairness are all ideals that must be adhered to in ethics. Medical ethics and Christian worldview have had a long-running confrontation in recent years (Carr & Winslow 2017). The Christian worldview prescribes a design for Christians to interpret the world via. It is critical for a Christian to have an ethical response to issues like “what should I do” while studying this doctrine. Mike and Joanne’s actions in this circumstance should be guided by truth, their child’s future, and a Christian best course of action. When it comes to applying medical ethics to the parents’ situation, beneficence is the most important value to remember. Parents should act in their children’s best interests regardless of the consequences, according to autonomy.

In this instance, it is up to the parents to make a choice on behalf of their kid. The parents were wise in choosing religious intervention over temporary dialysis since beneficence stands for greatest benefit. In today’s world, social norms have shifted to the point that a medical outcome is frequently determined by its significance to the patient’s family rather than the practitioners (Beever & Brightman 2016). The parents’ ethical problem is clear: they want their faith to heal James, which leads them to contemplate medical assistance as a backup alternative. The parents had hoped that James would be healed by faith, but when that failed, they explored medical assistance.

2. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian balance each of the four principles in this case? Explain why. (45 points)

The four principles should be ranked in a precise order according to the Christian viewpoint. The first rule is to be beneficent. On behalf of their children, parents make decisions. As a result, the first principle that the parents have is beneficence. On behalf of their children, parents make decisions. As a result, parents have a responsibility to ensure that their actions are in the best interests of their children. Non-maleficence is the second principle. This principle is in favor of goodness. Christians should do more good than damage for the welfare of their children.

When making a choice on behalf of their children, parents must think about what would benefit their children rather than what will hurt them. This should be the case regardless of the moral issue that a case presents. Justice and fairness are the third and last principles. It is critical for Christian to make the best option possible. Christians should be just, which means they should respect the interests of others (Beever & Brightman 2016). The autonomy principle is the fourth principle. It is critical for Christians to respect the rights of others to make their own decisions. Patients who have autonomy have the flexibility to make their own decisions without being influenced by others. Christians should be prepared to accept other people’s decisions in certain situations, even if they disagree with them. As a result, the Christian worldview ranks medical ethics in terms of their relevance to Christian doctrine: beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and autonomy.

References:

Beever, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2016). Reflexive principlism as an effective approach for developing ethical reasoning in engineering. Science and engineering ethics, 22(1), 275-291.

Carr, M. F., & Winslow, G. R. (2017). From conceptual to concrete. In World Religions for Healthcare Professionals (pp. 15-29). Routledge.

Gillon, R. (2018). Principlism, virtuism, and the spirit of oneness. In Healthcare Ethics, Law and Professionalism (pp. 45-59). Routledge.

Case Study: Healing and Autonomy

Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born 8 years ago. James is currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection. The spread of the A streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. Usually cases of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep infection tend to improve on their own or with an antibiotic. However, James also had elevated blood pressure and enough fluid buildup that required temporary dialysis to relieve.

The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After some time of discussion with Joanne, Mike informs the physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God. Mike and Joanne had been moved by a sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and also had witnessed a close friend regain mobility when she was prayed over at a healing service after a serious stroke. They thought it more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing service instead of putting James through multiple rounds of dialysis. Yet, Mike and Joanne agreed to return to the hospital after the faith healing services later in the week, and in hopes that James would be healed by then.

Two days later the family returned and was forced to place James on dialysis, as his condition had deteriorated. Mike felt perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James earlier. Had he not enough faith? Was God punishing him or James? To make matters worse, James’s kidneys had deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary matter and was in need of a kidney transplant. Crushed and desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate one of their own kidneys to James, but they were not compatible donors. Over the next few weeks, amidst daily rounds of dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also offered to donate a kidney to James. However, none of them were tissue matches.

James’s nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was stable, given the regular dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year. Given the desperate situation, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, but as of yet had not been considered—James’s brother Samuel.

Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have his other son Samuel lose a kidney or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real testing of his faith will come in? Mike reasons, “This time around it is a matter of life and death. What could require greater faith than that?”

© 2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.