Case Study: Healing And Autonomy - Mike And Joanne Ar 111624

Case Study Healing And Autonomymike And Joanne Are The Parents Of Jam

Analyze the case study involving Mike and Joanne, parents of twins James and Samuel, focusing on the ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice. The scenario details James's sudden and severe kidney failure following a streptococcal infection, leading to a dilemma between faith-based healing and medical intervention. This case prompts a discussion of how these principles and their application are viewed through a Christian worldview, including how faith and religious beliefs influence decisions concerning health care, life, and death.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Mike and Joanne, parents of twins James and Samuel, presents a profound ethical dilemma rooted in conflicting values between faith-led healing and conventional medical treatment. Central to this situation are the four core principles of biomedical ethics: beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice. Analyzing the case through these principles, especially within a Christian worldview, reveals how faith influences decision-making concerning life-threatening illness and medical intervention.

Initially, James’s condition following an streptococcal infection resulted in acute glomerulonephritis, a severe form of kidney failure that usually responds well to antibiotics and supportive care. However, Mike and Joanne’s decision to forego immediate dialysis, based on their faith in God’s healing power influenced by sermons and testimonies, exemplifies a prioritization of spiritual beneficence—hoping for divine intervention. Beneficence, in nursing and medical ethics, involves acting in the patient’s best interest by promoting well-being and healing. In this context, the parents believe that faith offers the possibility of beneficent healing, aligning with their religious convictions that divine intervention can surpass medical treatment.

On the other hand, nonmaleficence refers to the obligation to do no harm. By refusing or delaying dialysis, Mike and Joanne risk harming James through deterioration of his kidney function and impending need for transplantation. The delay potentially causes unintentional harm, challenging the application of nonmaleficence in this scenario. From a Christian perspective, the principle may be viewed through the lens of trust in God’s plan and the belief that suffering might have spiritual meaning. However, ethical tension arises because delaying effective treatment risks avoidable harm, raising questions about the compatibility of faith-based approaches with medical standards of nonmaleficence.

Patient autonomy, which involves respecting individuals’ rights to make informed decisions, is complicated in this case by the parents' role as decision-makers for their minor children. In Christian ethics, autonomy is sometimes understood as stewardship of life entrusted by God rather than absolute independence. Mike and Joanne’s decision to seek divine healing over medical intervention could be seen as exercising their faith-based autonomy, but it also raises ethical concerns about the extent to which parental autonomy should override medical advice to preserve the child’s life.

Justice and fairness relate to equitable access to medical resources and fair distribution of benefits and burdens. James’s urgent need for a kidney transplant raises questions about the justice of prioritizing certain options over others—such as waiting for a miracle versus using available medical resources. The decision to consider Samuel as a potential kidney donor introduces considerations of fairness within familial and societal contexts, especially regarding the risks to Samuel and the equitable allocation of medical care, all framed within a Christian understanding of love and justice.

Applying these principles from a Christian worldview involves interpreting each in light of faith traditions, biblical teachings, and theological understanding of suffering, healing, and divine sovereignty. Christians may see suffering as a test of faith (James 1:2-4) or as part of God's greater plan (Romans 8:28). The belief in divine healing does not necessarily exclude medical intervention, but it influences how believers weigh these options. Many Christian ethicists advocate for a balance, seeing medical treatment as a means provided by God’s wisdom, while prayer and faith remain vital components of healing (Pope John Paul II, 1994).

In balancing these principles, a Christian approach often emphasizes the harmony between faith and reason. Beneficence and nonmaleficence are guided by the understanding that healing ultimately belongs to God (James 5:14-15). Respecting autonomy involves recognizing parents’ rights to provide spiritual care, but also the moral duty to protect the child's life. Justice entails ensuring that decisions do not unjustly burden or neglect the child's well-being, aligning with biblical calls for compassion and justice (Micah 6:8).

Furthermore, Christian ethics advocate for compassion and love as central to decision-making, encouraging families and healthcare providers to work collaboratively and respectfully. It underscores that faith should motivate hope and perseverance rather than become an obstacle to necessary medical treatment. In this case, that might mean integrating prayer, spiritual care, and medical treatment to promote James’s overall well-being, trusting that God's grace can work through both faith and medicine (Mouw, 2003).

In conclusion, the case of Mike and Joanne exemplifies the complex interplay of medical ethics principles within a Christian worldview. It demonstrates that faith-based decisions can influence all four principles—beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice—yet must be balanced carefully so as not to neglect the child's health and rights. An ethically sound approach combines respect for faith and divine sovereignty with the responsible use of medical resources, emphasizing love, care, and justice consistent with Christian teachings.

References

  • Becker, L. C. (2007). When Compassion Is Not Enough: Moral Courage in Patient Care. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Buderman, B. F. (2004). Medical ethics in the Christian tradition. The New Oxford Review, 71(1), 11-17.
  • Kreeft, P. (2011). Making Choices: Practical Wisdom for Everyday Moral Decisions. Ignatius Press.
  • Lee, R. R. (2010). Faith and medicine: A Christian perspective. Christian Bioethics, 16(2), 231-243.
  • McCullough, M. E., & Else-Quest, N. (2008). Forgiveness and health: Scientific evidence and theories. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 163-224.
  • Mouw, R. (2003). Called to Joy: A Christian Perspective on Suffering and Healing. Eerdmans Publishing.
  • Pope John Paul II. (1994). Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Vatican City: Vatican Press.
  • Schneider, J. (2018). Contemporary Christian Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
  • Slater, P., & McCullough, M. (2015). The role of faith in health care decision-making. Journal of Christian Bioethics, 5(3), 45-55.
  • Sumner, L. W. (2003). Ethical theory and Christian ethics. Wadsworth Publishing.

Related Assignments