PHI 413V Grand Canyon University Patients Spiritual Needs Case Study use the chart you completed and questions you answered in the Topic 3 about “Case Stud

PHI 413V Grand Canyon University Patients Spiritual Needs Case Study use the chart you completed and questions you answered in the Topic 3 about “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” as the basis for your responses in this assignment.Answer the following questions about a patient’s spiritual needs in light of the Christian worldview.In 200-250 words, respond to the following: Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James, or would that mean a disrespect of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale.In 400-500 words, respond to the following: How ought the Christian think about sickness and health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is truly honoring the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in James’s care?In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the physician assist Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others involved in his care? Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
PHI-413V-0503 Ethical and Spiritual Decision Making in Healthcare
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.
©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Medical Indications
Patient Preferences
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Autonomy
Beneficence
-James’ doctor proposed immediate dialysis to stabilize him and
prevent deterioration of the condition.
– When the parent brought James back to the hospital, the doctor
immediately placed him on dialysis to alleviate his condition.
– The doctors informed the parents that James needed a kidney
transplant.
– James was below the legal age, so the parent made medical
decisions on his behalf.
– The parents exercised their right to refuse dialysis, take
James out of the hospital for healing prayers.
– The parent’s brought the patient back after a few days when
they felt that his condition was not improving.
– The doctors conducted tissue matches on the family and church
members looking for a possible match, even though they were
not successful.
Non-maleficence
– The doctor informed the parents of the option of the twin
brother, Samuel, as a potential donor.
-The doctors encouraged James’ father to bring him back any
time they needed.
Quality of Life
Contextual Features
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy
Justice and Fairness
Beneficence
– The doctors ensured that they gave James the best care they
could under the circumstances.
– The doctors placed James under dialysis after the parents
brought him back when his condition deteriorated.
Non-maleficence
– The doctors allowed the parents to take James for prayers so
that they do not hurt their feelings and compromise their faith.
They hoped he would heal after the prayers.
– James had the right to get treatment and dialysis from the
hospital to deal with his illness.
– James had the right to refuse treatment for his son and take
him for prayer healing.
– James’ parent had the right to bring him back to the hospital.
– Samuel, the potential donor, is eight years old. Forcing him
to donate a kidney to his brother may be against his rights.
©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
– The doctors kept the door open for the parents to bring back
James if his situation did not improve.
– The doctors advised but did not force the parent to consider
Samuel as a potential kidney donor for James.
©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
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)
To a Christian worldview, the principle of beneficence is paramount. In whatever they do, Christians aim and
doing good and avoiding causing harm to one’s neighbor. In the current case, the parent’s sole interest is the
wellbeing of their son, James, who has a kidney issue, glomerulonephritis. The kidney problem has progressed
from an earlier condition of strep infection. The parents, Mike and Joanne, have lost faith in medical science, and
prefer to seek divine intervention through prayers. To them, seeking help from a minister weighed more than
placing their child on dialysis. However, after his medical condition worsened, they decided to bring him back to
the hospital.
Unfortunately, James’ condition had worsened, and he needed a transplant, with the only potential donor being
his 8-year old brother. The parents are held in a dilemma on whether to let James die due to lack of a kidney or
allow his brother to donate. Unfortunately, they may be harming the young donor.
Further, the principle of autonomy is a highly valued one to a Christian as a person is given a choice and freewill. The choice lies at the heart of the parent’s action of taking James for prayers, and the decision to bring him
back to the hospital. To the Christian worldview, prayers have a significant role in a person’s life. Christians
believe that prayers can bring healing to the individual (Keller, 2015). In the current case, the parents may decide
to continue believing in God for James’ healing rather than allow his brother to donate his kidney.
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)
In the current case, a Christian should not have a problem balancing the four principles, except on the issue of the
donation. First, to moderate Christians, a group Mike and Joanne seem to belong, medical services and religion
are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why God cannot heal a sick person through the doctor’s treatment.
Beneficence, in that case, involves the best interest of the child, which seems to be at the hospital.
The autonomy of the child is excised through the parents. Their decision of foregoing multiple dialyses for
prayers could not be overruled. However, with the benefit of hindsight, the doctors should have limited it in the
©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
interest of the child. The doctors have the right to intervene if the patient autonomy may place his health in more
danger (Pollak et al., 2011). By letting the parents have their way on the medical condition, they jeopardized his
health. The doctors and the parents are both interested in the health of the child. In light of James’ deteriorating
condition, the interest of the child lies in allowing the doctor to lead the way in his treatment.
However, Samuel does not have autonomy as he is only a child. The parents need to make the right decision for
both twins. Medical investigation indicates a very low potential of a young donor having a life-threatening
complication after the process. Therefore, he should allow the doctors to undertake the kidney transplant from
Samuel to James. Their faith in God should allow them to go through the process of the transplant, knowing that
they have done the best they could for their children. Since they had already gone through the process of looking
for a donor, they should give Samuel the chance to donate the kidney.
To conservative Christians, they believe that suffering and illnesses are aspects of God’s creation. Some believe
that illness is a punishment from God. As such, they have a problem conceptualizing the role of doctors,
medicines, and science in their lives (Oliver, Ahmed, &Woywodt, 2012). They believe that the devil causes
illnesses and which can only be cured by faith in God. Mike and Joanne took their child to the hospital, indicating
that they are moderate Christians who believe that God can heal through doctors and medicines.
©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
References
Keller, T. (2015). Walking with God through pain and suffering. Penguin Books.
Oliver, M., Ahmed, A., &Woywodt, A. (2012). Donating in good faith or getting into trouble Religion and organ donation
revisited. World journal of transplantation, 2(5), 69.
Pollak, K. I., Alexander, S. C., Tulsky, J. A., Lyna, P., Coffman, C. J., Dolor, R. J., … &Østbye, T. (2011). Physician empathy and
listening: associations with patient satisfaction and autonomy. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 24(6),
665-672.
©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment