Applying The Four Principles Case Study Part 1 Chart 60 Poin ✓ Solved
Applying The Four Principles Case Studypart 1 Chart 60 Pointsbased
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 Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy Contextual Features Justice and Fairness ©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Sample Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
The “Healing and Autonomy” case study presents a complex ethical dilemma involving medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, and justice, framed within a Christian worldview. The conflicting principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice must be carefully examined to understand the ethical and spiritual considerations involved. This paper aims to analyze these principles as applied in the case of James, a young boy suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, and evaluate how a Christian worldview influences their interpretation and balancing.
Medical Indications
James's medical condition is acute, caused by streptococcal infection leading to kidney failure. Standard treatment would involve immediate dialysis and potential transplantation. Medical indications suggest that dialysis is necessary to prevent further deterioration or death, emphasizing beneficence (doing good) by preserving James's life and nonmaleficence (avoiding harm) by preventing further organ damage. The nephrologist recommends dialysis based on the medical facts, which conflicts with the parents’ preference for faith healing over conventional treatment.
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Beneficence directs healthcare providers to act in the best interest of the patient, promoting health and well-being. Nonmaleficence urges providers to do no harm, which includes preventing avoidable death or suffering. In this context, the nurse and physician are ethically obligated to recommend dialysis to save James’s life. Conversely, Mike and Joanne, guided by their faith, believe that prayer and spiritual intervention hold healing power, possibly overriding traditional medical beneficence. However, refusing treatment risks significant harm, raising questions about the balance between respecting faith and preventing harm.
Patient Preferences and Autonomy
James, although a minor, is likely capable of expressing discomfort and distress, but his preferences might be overridden by his guardians' faith-based decisions. Mike and Joanne’s decision reflects their autonomy rooted in Christian faith, prioritizing trust in divine intervention over medical advice. Christian ethics emphasize respecting individual and family religious beliefs; nonetheless, in pediatrics, parental authority must be balanced with the child's best interests, especially when life-threatening decisions are involved.
Quality of Life
The parents believe that faith healing could restore James's health, viewing quality of life as potentially attainable through divine intervention. Medical treatment aims to prolong life and improve health, but faith-based views might see suffering as a spiritual test. The hope for miraculous healing influences their perception of quality of life, possibly undervaluing the benefits of medical intervention or overestimating divine power.
Contextual Features
The family’s faith community and pastor influence their decision-making, emphasizing trust in divine healing over medical science. Cultural and religious beliefs shape their view of health, illness, and healing, possibly impacting their willingness to accept medical treatment. The case illustrates the importance of contextual factors such as religious upbringing and community faith, which can either support or hinder ethical medical care within a Christian worldview.
Justice and Fairness
Justice involves equitable access to treatment; James's urgent need for a kidney transplant raises questions about resource allocation. The ethical dilemma extends to the fairness of accepting or rejecting available medical options. The nephrologist's offer of a compatible donor—Samuel, James’s brother—raises issues of familial responsibility and the fairness of requiring a minor to donate a kidney. Ethically, the decision must consider the child's well-being while respecting familial bonds.
Application of Christian Worldview Principles
1. Specification and Weighting of Principles:
In a Christian worldview, the principle of beneficence aligns with the biblical mandate to love one's neighbor (Mark 12:31) and care for the vulnerable (James). Nonmaleficence emphasizes avoiding harm, consistent with the command not to kill (Exodus 20:13). Autonomy is subordinate to divine sovereignty but respects individual faith commitments; it emphasizes trusting God's plan over human intervention. Justice considers fairness as guided by biblical teachings on equity and love for neighbor (Galatians 5:14).
2. Balancing Principles:
A Christian would see the preservation of life as paramount, prioritizing beneficence and nonmaleficence while respecting faith. They might interpret autonomy as entrusting the child's soul and body to God's will, encouraging acceptance of medical treatment as an act of stewardship and trust. Justice involves providing equitable care, considering the family’s spiritual beliefs, and ensuring that decisions do not discriminate against the vulnerable. The challenge lies in balancing obedience to divine guidance and medical responsibility.
Conclusion
The case exemplifies the tension between faith-based decision-making and medical ethics rooted in the four principles. A Christian worldview fosters a compassionate approach that balances respect for divine sovereignty with the obligation to preserve life and prevent harm. Ultimately, ethical care must honor the family’s religious convictions while safeguarding the child's health, advocating for a harmonious integration of faith and medical responsibility.
References
- Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Hankins, J. (2014). Faith and medicine: A Christian perspective. Journal of Religion & Health, 53(4), 993-1004.
- Johnson, C. E. (2020). Ethics in health care: A new perspective. Routledge.
- McMinn, R. (2016). The Christian moral life: A biblical worldview. Baker Academic.
- Puchalski, C. (2014). Spirituality in healthcare: A guide for clinicians. Routledge.
- Religious Freedom & Medical Decision-Making. (2020). National Catholic Bioethics Center. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Schneider, B. (2012). Christian ethics and health care. Journal of Religious Ethics, 40(3), 347-365.
- Slote, L. (2019). Faith, hope, and healing: Christian perspectives on medicine. Cambridge University Press.
- Williamson, J. (2017). The moral and spiritual dimensions of healthcare. Oxford University Press.
- Yeo, H. (2015). Ethics and religion in medical practices. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(2), 97-102.