GCU Healing and Autonomy case study

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 23rd, 2019
account_balance_wallet $30

Question Description

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 of principlism.

Based on the "Case Study: Healing and Autonomy" and other required topic study materials, you will complete the "Applying the Four Principles: Case Study" document that includes the following:

Part 1: Chart

This chart will formalize principlism 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 study materials.

APA style is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance

Case Study: Healing and Autonomy Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born 8 years ago. James is currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection. The spread of the A streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. Usually cases of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep infection tend to improve on their own or with an antibiotic. However, James also had elevated blood pressure and enough fluid buildup that required temporary dialysis to relieve. The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After some time of discussion with Joanne, Mike informs the physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God. Mike and Joanne had been moved by a sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and also had witnessed a close friend regain mobility when she was prayed over at a healing service after a serious stroke. They thought it more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing service instead of putting James through multiple rounds of dialysis. Yet, Mike and Joanne agreed to return to the hospital after the faith healing services later in the week, and in hopes that James would be healed by then. Two days later the family returned and was forced to place James on dialysis, as his condition had deteriorated. Mike felt perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James earlier. Had he not enough faith? Was God punishing him or James? To make matters worse, James's kidneys had deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary matter and was in need of a kidney transplant. Crushed and desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate one of their own kidneys to James, but they were not compatible donors. Over the next few weeks, amidst daily rounds of dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also offered to donate a kidney to James. However, none of them were tissue matches. James’s nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was stable, given the regular dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year. Given the desperate situation, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, but as of yet had not been considered—James’s brother Samuel. Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have his other son Samuel lose a kidney or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real testing of his faith will come in? Mike reasons, “This time around it is a matter of life and death. What could require greater faith than that?” © 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
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 Patient Preferences Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Autonomy Quality of Life Contextual Features Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy Justice and Fairness ©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Part 2: Evaluation Answer each of the following questions about how principlism would be applied: 1. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, which of the four principles is most pressing in this case? Explain why. (45 points) 2. 2. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian rank the priority of the four principles? Explain why. (45 points) 3. References: ©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Tutor Answer

RyanTopTutor
School: Rice University

Attached.

Name:
Instructor:
Institutional Affiliation:
Date:

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

Patient Preferences

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Autonomy

The principle of beneficence relates to the obligation to provide
benefits and to balance that benefit against risk. On the other
hand the principle of non-maleficence relates to the obligation to
avoid causing harm (Bryant & la Velle, 2018). In case study the
principle of beneficence and non-maleficence are in conflict.
While attending physician suggested a medical dialysis for James
both Mike and Joanne agrees anonymously and avoids lifesaving medication early which could have saved the life of
James. Nonetheless, the principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence were not observed.

Autonomy is the obligation to respect the decision making
capacities of autonomous person which in this case relates to
the decision to avoid treatment for James made by his parents.
The attending physician respected this decision because
according to the principle of autonomy, it is prohibited to
disrespect first party refusal of treatment. Nonetheless, the
attending physician would have recognized that the refusal to
accept treatment by the parents were non-a...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations !

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors