PHI 413 Case-Study: Biomedical Ethics
Part 1: Chart
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Write a 1,200-1,500 word analysis of “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy.” In light of the readings, be sure to address the following questions:
Under the Christian narrative and Christian vision, what sorts of issues are most pressing in this case study?
Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James?
According to the Christian narrative and the discussion of the issues of treatment refusal, patient autonomy, and organ donation in the topic readings, how might one analyze this case?
According to the topic readings and lecture, how ought the Christian think about sickness and health? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James?
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.
Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.
Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.
The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.
Discussion Questions (DQ)Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality
Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Use of Direct Quotes
I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
Optional – Topic 3: Optional Resources
For additional information, see the “Topic 3: Optional Resources” that are recommended.
Read Scripture: TaNaK/Old Testament
View the online video, “Read Scripture: TaNaK/Old Testament,” from the Bible Project, located on the YouTube website (2
Word Study: Khata/Sin
View the online video, “Word Study: Khata/Sin,” from the Bible Project, located on the YouTube website (2018).
Understanding Health and Healing
View the “Understanding Health and Healing” media piece.
Incorporating Spirituality into Patient Care
Read “Incorporating Spirituality into Patient Care,” by Orr, from American Medical Association Journal of Ethics (2015).
Explore “The Messiah” webpage and watch the video on the Bible Project website (2018).
Sacrifice and Atonement
Explore “Sacrifice and Atonement” webpage and watch the video, on the Bible Project website (2018).
Word Study: Shalom/Peace
View the online video, “Word Study: Shalom/Peace,” from the Bible Project, located on the YouTube website (2017).
Practicing Dignity: An Introduction to Christian Values and Decision-Making in Health Care
Read Chapters 3 from Practicing Dignity.
New Testament Overview
View the online video, “New Testament Overview,” from the Bible Project, located on the YouTube website (2018