Applying The Four Principles: Case Study 1 Part 1 Chart

Applying the Four Principles: Case Study 1 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

Medical Indications:

  • Quick dialysis will help James manage fluid buildup and high blood pressure.
  • James’ condition worsened, leading to the necessity of dialysis, and he requires a kidney transplant within the year.
  • The ideal donor is Samuel, James’ brother.
  • A kidney transplant could save James’ life but poses risks to Samuel, who would remain with one kidney after surgery.

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence:

  • Respecting the medical principle of beneficence involves taking actions that promote James’ health, such as dialysis and eventual transplantation.
  • Nonmaleficence emphasizes avoiding harm—though the transplant is lifesaving, it carries risks for Samuel, including surgical complications and long-term health impacts.
  • Mike struggles with the decision because of concerns about the harm to Samuel, weighing the benefits to James against potential harm to the donor.

Patient Preferences:

  • The parents’ faith influences their decision-making; they prefer faith healing over medical intervention initially.
  • Mike believes in divine intervention and hopes that God will heal James, delaying medical treatment.
  • It is unclear how Joanne feels about the decision; her opinion is not explicitly expressed.
  • Samuel and James, as affected individuals, should have the opportunity to express their preferences, but their wishes are not clearly documented.

Autonomy:

  • Parents’ autonomy influences treatment choices, often based on faith rather than medical advice.
  • The autonomy of James and Samuel should be respected, with their capacity to consent evaluated.
  • Their involvement in decision-making is limited, raising questions about their autonomous rights in medical choices.

Quality of Life:

  • Dialysis helps restore kidney function and could prolong life, though it may reduce quality of life due to discomfort and restrictions.
  • Without intervention, James’ condition worsens, risking mortality.
  • Successful transplantation could significantly improve James’ quality of life.
  • Samuel faces temporary decline post-surgery but benefits by possibly avoiding the loss of his brother.

Contextual Features:

  • Family dynamics, religious beliefs, and faith influence treatment decisions.
  • The parents’ reliance on faith may conflict with medical recommendations.
  • There is an ethical tension between respecting religious beliefs and ensuring the patient’s medical best interests.

Most Significant Principle

According to the Christian worldview, beneficence is the most pressing principle in this case because it emphasizes acting in the best interest of the patient, promoting health and well-being aligned with Christian love and compassion. Beneficence underscores the moral obligation to help others and alleviate suffering, which is consistent with Christian teachings of caring for neighbors and valuing life. While respect for autonomy and justice are vital, beneficence drives the immediate medical actions necessary to save James’ life, reflecting the Christian ethic of compassion and beneficence (Kaczor, 2011).

Priority of Principles in a Christian Worldview

In a Christian worldview, the principles are often prioritized based on biblical teachings and moral duties. Beneficence generally ranks highest because it aligns with the commandment to love one’s neighbor and foster their well-being (Matthew 22:39). Justice follows closely, as fair treatment and equitable resource distribution are integral to Christian social ethics (Matthew 25:34-40). Autonomy, rooted in free will given by God (Genesis 2:16-17), is respected but subordinate to the overarching imperative of beneficence—doing good and preventing harm. Nonmaleficence also supports these principles by emphasizing the avoidance of harm as a moral obligation. Thus, Christian ethics would prioritize beneficence, with justice, autonomy, and nonmaleficence informing how beneficence is enacted in practice (Becker, 2013).

References

  • Becker, R. O. (2013). Principles of Christian ethics. HarperCollins.
  • Kaczor, C. (2011). The ethics of Aquinas: An introduction. Catholic University of America Press.
  • Medical Principles. (2020). Applied medical ethics. Grand Canyon University.
  • Christian and Health. (2020). Christian perspective on healthcare ethics. Retrieved from https://www.christianhealth.org
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (2016). Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. U.S. Catholic Conference.
  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press.
  • Brody, H. (2010). Health and healing: A guide for Christians. Eerdmans.
  • Johnstone, M. (2013). A Christian view of medical ethics. Harvard University Press.
  • Gula, R. M. (2014). The good life and the common good. Notre Dame Press.
  • Gallagher, S. (2009). Virtue ethics and Christian healthcare. Cambridge University Press.

Related Assignments