2
Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Daniel Nweke
PHI-413V Ethical and Spiritual Decision Making in Healthcare
Professor Steven Robenalt
Grand Canyon University
May 16, 2022
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
In the case study, the attending physician suggested immediate dialysis for James. This shows that the physician applied the principle of beneficence which requires that the physician make decisions for the best
James’s nephrologist demonstrated the principle of Nonmaleficence through the provision of dialysis and recommending a kidney transplant.
The attending physician and James’s nephrologist demonstrated autonomy by allowing James’s parents to make informed choices. They only made suggestions and recommended what is best for James and left the parents to make the final decision.
Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness
James’s parents and the physicians made a decision that was best for James.
The physician and James’s nephrologist recommended dialysis which was the best option to improve James’s quality of life.
Justice is the provision of fair, appropriate, and equitable treatment of persons.
Providing dialysis and kidney transplant was a fair care plan for James since his condition was deteriorating.
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how the four principles and four boxes approach would be applied:
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)
Healthcare professionals are guided by the four ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice (Varkey, 2021). Religion remains a significant force in morality and decision-making in society. They range from humble allegations of faith in a cultural context to complex theologies. The Christian impact on medical ethics has been enormous and constructive. Fundamental to the contribution of Christianity to medical ethics is the intrinsic value of human life which we are accountable to God (Cherry, 2020). According to Christianity, justice involves making a person whole by upholding goodness and impartiality. In the case of James, justice was served when he received the dialysis and the willingness of his parents to donate their kidneys showed fairness. In Christianity, God owns people therefore Christians are free to do what is right rather than what pleases them (Cherry, 2020). James’s parents and the physician based their decisions on what is best for James, this shows the respect for autonomy. Beneficence in Christianity means sacrificing our self-interests for the sake of a person in need. In the case study, James’s parents respected the principle of beneficence because they were willing to sacrifice and donate their kidneys for their son. Nonmaleficence in Christianity is the moral imperative not to cause harm or evil.
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)
According to the Christian worldview, a Christian may balance each of the four principles by prioritizing James’s needs. James’s situation required immediate dialysis to save him, but his parents prioritized their belief in God rather than the condition that James was in. I agree that faith is important for healing. Trusting in God is always great not only at times of need. As Christians, we should understand the situations that medical attention is the best option than praying for God’s healing (Adashi & Cohen, 2017). In the case, of James, I would say his parents made a wrong choice by rejecting the dialysis at first which made James’s condition worse. They should have balanced the principle of justice and beneficence with their Christian beliefs and put in prayers as their son is being treated. There are scenarios where the doctor knows better, and we should trust their diagnosis to save our loved ones. The principle of nonmaleficence requires that we should not harm. James’s parents should have prioritized the safety of their son by accepting the dialysis to prevent James from harm. Christians can always turn to spirituality to make their health decisions (Adashi & Cohen, 2017). But it is important to understand what the doctors or physicians recommend avoiding making poor choices. Spirituality and religion impact peoples’ choices regarding medicines, diet, and other aspects like the preferred gender of the healthcare provider.
References:
Adashi, E. Y., & Cohen, I. G. (2017). Ideology v. beneficence. Journal of Law and the Biosciences.
Cherry, M. J. (2020). Christian Bioethics: Immanent Goals or a Transcendent Orientation?. Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 26(2), 113-123.
Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17-28.
©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.