CASE STUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS IN THE CHRISTIAN NARRATIVE PHI 413
CASE STUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS IN THE CHRISTIAN NARRATIVE PHI 413
Part 1: Chart
Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on CASE STUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS IN THE CHRISTIAN NARRATIVE PHI 413 completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
| Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence In order to make a diagnosis and determine treatment options, there is a need to assess medical indications exhibited by a patient. Beneficence refers to a health professional acting with best intentions to provide care to patients whereas non-beneficence encourages care providers not to do harm (Gillon, 2018). As per the case study, the surrogates of James acted in the best interest of the patient even the medical condition of James would still be worse even when treated. | Patient Preferences Autonomy Autonomy refers to the right of patients to express their choice or make a decision of care yet to be administered to them (Gillon, 2018). Even though James is an underage child, his right to autonomy must be upheld. The parents ought to have consulted the patient before making a decision on care. The physician had limited influence to alter the decisions made by the parents. |
| Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy In the healthcare setting, quality of life entail the medical features of a patient after a therapy has been administered (Gillon, 2018). As per the case study, the health condition of James was worst but improved significantly after dialysis. Conversely, the patient needs a renal replacement therapy involving a kidney transplant to improve the quality of his life. His brother can donate to him his kidney but his father has an opinion to rely on faith regarding the health status of James. The parents, however, should consult James regarding the issue because the last time they relied on faith his condition worsened (Gillon, 2018). The parents should act in the best interest so that the brother can donate the kidney to optimize the quality of health for James. | Contextual Feature Justice and Fairness Medical decision can greatly be influenced by familial and social factors as well as legal considerations. In the case study, James’ parents relied on faith when making decision for the health status of their son (Gillon, 2018). They focused more on religious beliefs for healing rather than receiving kidney from his bother. However, the conflict of interest arose when there was a mismatch of cells between James and his brother meaning that the latter could not donate his kidney. This made the parents were therefore willing to donate the kidney and even appealed for the goodwill of well-wishers to offer this vital organ. |
Part 2: Evaluation
Four Principles most Pressing according to Christian worldview
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on CASE STUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS IN THE CHRISTIAN NARRATIVE PHI 413 done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
In the Christian perspectives, beneficence emerge as the principle with the most pressing issue pertaining to the health of a patient. The argument is guided by the premise that James’ parents made decision in the interest of their ailing son. They blindly believed that James would be healed with the support from their daily prayers (SSorajjakool et al., 2017). In this context, the parents relied more on prayers rather than providing kidney to support the life of James. Other than medical support, the parents had faith that prayers also work. No one can criticize their approach and perception in life considering that they made attempts to address the health of their son despite his deteriorating health (Hubbell, Kauschinger & Oermann, 2017). They were also against the idea about the brother donating one of his kidneys to the ailing James. All these actions affirm that the parents cared for the health status of their children. In fact, when the health status of James deteriorated while receiving homecare, they took him back to the care facility for further examination. With this, the parents aimed at addressing the health of their son despite wrong decisions that they sometimes made with regard to his care.
How a Christian might rank the Priority of the Four Principles
In an approach of health, a Christian can give priority to the four principles by starting with beneficence as it is based on one’s goodwill regarding the health of others. According to Christian teachings, parents need to provide love to their children and this is consistent with the principle of beneficence (SSorajjakool et al., 2017). The second priority goes to nonmaleficence which points as doing no harm to patients. Christian parents should not intend or initiate activities that harm their children. The principle is based on the Christian teaching that human life is sacred and that it should be protected by everyone. Justice and fairness are ranked the third as they ensure that health service delivery is provided without preferential treatment to anyone. In Christian teaching, every human being is equal before God and this should be demonstrated during provision of care. The last ranking on the list will be autonomy which ensures that patients make decisions on medical services provided to them. Christians need to allow their patients to choose their option of care and this decision must be respected (Hubbell, Kauschinger & Oermann, 2017). The premise ensures that the dignity of every person is upheld so that one receives quality service to improve on their well-being.
References
Gillon, R. (2018). Principlism, virtuism, and the spirit of oneness. In Healthcare Ethics, Law and Professionalism (pp. 45-59). Routledge.
Hubbell, S. L., Kauschinger, E., & Oermann, M. (2017). Development and Implementation of an Educational Module to Increase Nurses’ Comfort With Spiritual Care in an Inpatient Setting. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 48(8), 358-364.
SSorajjakool, S., Carr, M. F., Nam, J. J., Sorajjakool, S., & Bursey, E. (2017). World religions for healthcare professionals. Routledge.
Assessment Description
This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case. Organizing the data in this way will help you apply the four principles and four boxes approach.
Based on the “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” and other required topic Resources, you will complete the “Applying the Four Principles: Case Study” document that includes the following:
Part 1: Chart
This chart will formalize the four principles and four boxes approach and the four-boxes approach by organizing the data from the case study according to the relevant principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.
Part 2: Evaluation
This part includes questions, to be answered in a total of 500 words, that describe how principalism would be applied according to the Christian worldview.
Remember to support your responses with the topic Resources.
APA style is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
CASE STUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS IN THE CHRISTIAN NARRATIVE PHI 413 SAMPLE 2
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 |
|
The ethical principle of beneficence requires that healthcare providers should engage in activities that entirely seek to benefit patients. On the other hand, the ethical principle of non-maleficence stresses that clinicians should commit no harm to patients during clinical practice (Ellis, 2020). The two principles manifested in various instances in the case at hand. The attending physician demonstrated beneficence by suggesting immediate dialysis to relieve James of high blood pressure and fluid buildup. The physician also advised Mike and Joanne to consider kidney transplant within a period of one year. On the other hand, non-maleficence was evident in the determination of whether or not Samuel should donate one of his kidneys to save James. Although kidney transplant is the only hope for saving the life, the life of Samuel would be at risk since Samuel will be left with one kidney and the life is also at danger during the surgical procedure to remove his kidney. |
Autonomy is an instrumental ethical principle that gives every patient a right to independence, self-determination, and freedom to make healthcare choices without any influence (Varkey, 2021). In the present case, the principle of autonomy has manifested in numerous ways. The attending physician only advised Mike and Joanne but did not influence their choices about treatment of James. The physician also honored the autonomy of Mike and Joanne by letting them to seek divine healing for their son, James. Autonomy was also manifested when the parents of James were given opportunity to decide whether or not they would let Samuel donate one of his two kidneys to save the life of James.
|
|
Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy |
Contextual Features Justice and Fairness |
|
The ethical principles of Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, and Autonomy were depicted in the various situations in case and they can be linked to significant impact on the quality of life (Shea, 2020). The principle of beneficence in relation to quality of life was depicted in a situation where Samuel was expected to donate kidney to James. If Samuel donated kidney, his brother James would return to normal health and his quality of life would increase. However, the health of Samuel would deteriorate due to surgery and also have poor quality of life. The principle of autonomy was witnessed in the refusal of James’ parents to seek medical treatment. If Mike complied with the physician’s advice to conduct dialysis, the life of James would be saved despite some negligible discomfort. However, the autonomy of Mike and Joanne was respected and they were allowed to seek divine healing. However, the condition of James worsens and kidney transplant became unavoidable. James was forced to go for dialysis, which is strenuous and likely to reduce quality of his life. The principle of nonmaleficence was demonstrated where Mike was in dilemma on whether he should risk the life of Samuel by donating a kidney and also letting him go through the process of surgery. This would reduce the quality of life of Samuel. |
Kidney transplant is the best way to restore the normal health of James. James’ parents are dilemma on whether or not they should let Samuel donate his kidney to his brother. The question is whether it is fair and just to let Samuel go through risky procedure of donating kidney or refuse to help his brother and let him die yet he is a position to help him. The other question is whether it is fair and just for Mike to ignore Joanne in decision making yet they are all parents. The other instance is whether it is fair and just for Mike to entirely put his faith in religion and God’s healing yet medical intervention could help James.
|
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how the four principles and four boxes approach would be applied:
- 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)
|
According to Christian worldview, every principle can be specified and weighted distinctively. The outstanding principle was beneficence which is concerned with activities aimed at benefiting other people (Varkey, 2021). In this case, when the parents of James were informed about the advantages and risks of dialysis, they resorted to religious interventions for healing. They trusted God’s healing power more than the medical intervention. Their action was in good faith because Christians believes God’s healing power and they should not be blamed. The other vital principle was nonmaleficence, which stresses that patients should suffer no harm (Varkey, 2021). This principle was demonstrated when the attending physicians and the parents had to determine the damage associated with kidney transplant against the benefits of the kidney transplant. As Christians, Mike and Joanne trusted the healing power of God and felt no need to subject Samuel to pain, harm, and implications of surgery yet God could cure James. The other principle was autonomy. Mike and Joanne were advised and given chance to decide whether Samuel should donate his kidney or let their son die for lack of donor. Christians believe that God is capable of addressing all human needs, which informed the decision of Mike to seek Gods intervention. The slightest of these principles in the present case was justice. This principle involved weighing whether it is just to save the life of James and make Samuel go through surgical procedure and live with one kidney for the rest of his life. |
- 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)
|
Christians can balance the four principles in the case scenario. Christians believe that faith without action is nothing. Mike and Joanne should acknowledge that knowledge that doctors poses is given by God to heal people. It is imperative to consider prioritizing the need of patient in this case and it is essential to take actions that are in the best interest of the James and Samuel. As Christians, Mike and Joanne ought to have considered the safety of their sons before their personal or religious perspectives. As such, autonomy of the parents in this case should be considered alongside the interests of their children. Although the parents have a right to decide the type of intervention for their children, the attending physicians is equally in the best position to determine what is in the best interest of James and Samuel (Kopar et al., 2021). Therefore, it would be proper for the parents to combine prayers with medical intervention. This leads to the principle of justice. Christians often support justice and fairness in all endeavors. However, sometimes the Christians perspective does not show justice and fairness. In this case, parents opted for prayers to heal their son and declined medical intervention. Although prayer can work, it could be coupled with medical intervention. The parents should have considered non-maleficence that seeks to prevent harm against patients and obligate clinicians and parents to act in the best interest of the James. Beneficence is equally critical in guiding parents in reduction of risks and also reminds the parents about God’s command to love others. |
References:
Shea, M. (2020). Principlism’s balancing act: Why the principles of biomedical ethics need a theory of the good. In The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine (Vol. 45, No. 4-5, pp. 441-470). https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhaa014
Ellis, P. (2020). Ethical concepts: duty-based theories. Journal of Kidney Care, 5(1), 30-32. https://doi.org/10.12968/jokc.2020.5.1.30
Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119
Kopar, P. K., Kramer, J. B., Brown, D. E., & Bochicchio, G. V. (2021). Critical ethics: how to balance patient autonomy with fairness when patients refuse coronavirus disease 2019 Testing. Critical Care Explorations, 3(1). Doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000326