Case Study Assignment: Healing and Autonomy/PHI 413

Case Study Assignment: Healing and Autonomy/PHI 413

Case Study Assignment: Healing and Autonomy/PHI 413

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:

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers. We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

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.

Attachments
PHI-413V-RS-T3T5CaseStudyHealingAndAutonomy.docx
PHI-413V-RS-T3ApplyingFourPrinciplesCaseSt

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

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 stipulates that clinicians need to involve in activities that are solely for the benefit of patients. The ethical principle of non-maleficence advances the need of causing no harm to patients when providing health care (Haahr et al., 2020). These two ethical principles played significant roles in the case study at hand. The principle of beneficence was demonstrated by the attending physician when he recommended immediate dialysis to help in relieving fluid buildup and high blood pressure in James. The attending physician equally proposed to Mike and Joanne to think about a kidney transplant within a year. These recommendations were for the sole benefit of James. On its side, the principle of non-maleficence was demonstrated in a situation where Mike and Joanne had to decide whether or not Samuel should offer one of his kidneys to secure the life of James. A kidney transplant was the better option and possibly the only way of saving a life of James. However, this move would also compromise the life of Samuel who will only be left with one kidney, which also puts his life in danger.	The ethical principle of autonomy seeks to ensure that every patient exercises a right to independence, freedom to make healthcare choices free from any influence, and self-determination (Moilanen et al., 2021). In the case at hand, the principle of autonomy was demonstrated in different ways. The physician only advised James’ parents to consider dialysis and kidney transplants but he never influenced their decision about the treatment of their son. The physician also honored the wish of Mike and Joanne to seek divine interventions by taking James to a faith healer rather than adhering to his medical proposals. The parents utilized the principle of autonomy and sought divine healing instead of medical interventions for the treatment of James. The principle of autonomy was also demonstrated when Mike and Joanne had to choose whether or not Samuel needed to donate one of his kidneys to save his brother James.
Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy	Contextual Features Justice and Fairness
The ethical principles of Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, and Autonomy were demonstrated in different situations in this case. These principles are attributed to crucial impacts on the patient’s quality of life. In the case at hand, the principle of beneficence concerning the quality of life was shown at the point when Samuel was singled out as the ideal donor for James. In this situation, if the parents decided that Samuel would donate one of his kidneys to James, he was likely to achieve good health and the quality of his life was likely to increase. However, this decision was likely to compromise the health of Samuel whose life would deteriorate as a result of surgery and record a poor quality of life. The principle of nonmaleficence was depicted in a situation where Mike had to choose between whether he should put his life of Samuel at danger by letting him go through surgery to donate his kidney. Surgery would reduce his quality of life. On the other hand, the principle of autonomy was depicted when Mike and Joanne refused to opt for medical treatment and opted for spiritual intervention to heal their son. If the parents followed the advice of the physician to conduct dialysis, the well-being of James would have been achieved, including increased quality of life after successful surgery. Nonetheless, the autonomy of parents was respected and they followed their wish for spiritual healing.	In the case at hand, the best way to restore the health of James is through a kidney transplant. However, the parents are hesitant to allow Samuel to donate his kidney to his brother, James. The parents insist on spiritual intervention. The ethical challenge in this situation is to determine whether it is just and fair to allow Samuel to go through a surgical procedure to donate his kidney to James or refuse to allow Samuel to donate his kidney and let James die yet he is the ideal donor and better placed to help his brother (McDermott-Levy et al., 2018). It is also important to determine whether it is fair and just for Mike to ignore his wife, Joanne when making critical decisions about the health of their children, James and Samuel. The other incidence that raises a question of justice and fairness is whether it is proper for Mike to solely rely on spirituality and God’s healing, yet medical interventions seemed most appropriate in treating their children and enabling them to regain full health and quality of life. Although the parents had autonomy in making health decisions for their children, it is not just and fair to trust solely in the power of God’s healing, yet medical interventions could be used alongside prayers to cure James.

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)

Based on the Christian worldview, each principle in this case can be specified and weighted separately. The key ethical principle, in this case, is the principle of beneficence, which advances activities intended to benefit others (Haahr et al., 2020).  In the case at hand, Mike and Joanne were notified about the benefits and risks of dialysis. However, they preferred spiritual and religious interventions to cure their son. They believe in the healing powers of God, which are superior to medical interventions. Although their actions were in good faith since Christians stress the divine healing of God, they should use have used prayers alongside medical interventions. Christians believe that faith without action is nothing.  The other outstanding principle was nonmaleficence. This ethical principle requires that patients should suffer no harm (Haahr et al., 2020). The principle was instrumental in the determination of harm associated with kidney transplant vis a vis the benefits of a kidney transplant.  As Christians, the parents felt that it was needless to let Samuel suffer pain, harm, and consequences associated with surgery yet James could be cured through prayers.  The ethical principle of autonomy follows. James’ parents had an opportunity to decide whether or not Samuel should donate his kidney save James or let James die. Since Christians believe in the power of God to satisfy all human needs, they resorted to divine interventions to heal their son (Groothuis, 2022). The last principle was justice. It involved the determination of whether it was just and fair to save and let Samuel go through the risky surgical procedure to donate his kidney to save the life of James.

 

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)

Christians can balance the four principles in this case scenario. The Bible teaches that faith without action is nothing. James’ parents need to understand that God gave physicians knowledge as a gift to treat people. As such, Mike and Joanne needed to mix faith and action by using both prayers and medical interventions to treat James. Moreover, it is important to prioritize the need of their children and take actions that are in their best interest (Shea, 2020). As Christians, the parents ought to have taken cognizance of their children’s safety before their spiritual perspectives. Therefore, it was essential to respect the autonomy of the parents in making health alongside the best interest of children. Although the right to make healthy choices for James and Samuel was vested in their parents, the recommendations of the physician should also be respected to make decisions that are in the best interest of James and Samuel (Varkey, 2021). As such, it was important for parents to use prayers alongside medical interventions. This could lead to the principle of justice, which Christians tend to advance in every endeavor. Mike and Joanne should have also advanced the principle of non-maleficence, which strives to deter harm against patients and require the healthcare providers and the parents to act in the best interest of the children. Beneficence was also important in helping to guide Mike and Joanne to minimize harm to James and Samuel.

References:

Groothuis, D. (2022). Christian apologetics: a comprehensive case for biblical faith. InterVarsity Press.

Haahr, A., Norlyk, A., Martinsen, B., & Dreyer, P. (2020). Nurses’ experiences of ethical dilemmas: A review. Nursing ethics, 27(1), 258-272. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0969733019832941

McDermott-Levy, R., Leffers, J., & Mayaka, J. (2018). Ethical principles and guidelines of global health nursing practice. Nursing Outlook, 66(5), 473-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2018.06.013

Moilanen, T., Kangasniemi, M., Papinaho, O., Mynttinen, M., Siipi, H., Suominen, S., & Suhonen, R. (2021). Older people’s perceived autonomy in residential care: An integrative review. Nursing ethics, 28(3), 414-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733020948115

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

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