Patients Spiritual Needs in Light of The Christian Worldview Questions

User Generated

ohqql209

Writing

Description

In addition to the topic study materials, 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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?

Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.

I HAVE ATTACHED THE CASE STUDY AND THE CHART I COMPLETED.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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?” 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 James requires a kidney transplant from a matching donor The doctor played his role by explaining to the family james’ because of end stage failure of the organ. condition and the need for fast interventions. I believe that the The kidney failure is a result of complications linked to a strep physician provided all the required vital information; including throat infection that James suffered. The acute state of James the risks involved in treatment delays. Therefore, he exercised necessitated immediate interventions. Due to delayed treatment autonomy by allowing James’ parents to make independent and contrary suggestions from James’ parent the condition decisions on his behalf that entailed taking the minor to a faith- exacerbated leading to the urgent need of a transplant. based healing intervention (Christen, Ineichen & Tanner, 2014). James’ prognosis is not good as the only treatment available is to The physician never coerced them to go with his recommendations despite the potential risk of treatment delay. have a transplant from a matching donor. His twin brother is the only matching donor. However, the physician can only carry out As such, the parents utilized their autonomy or independent to the transplant with consent from James’ parents. Conversely, the make the decision to go for faith healing instead of the medical parents are staunch Christians who believe in healing miracle. advice. Again, when it failed, they came back based on their personal decisions and independent opinion. James is a child who cannot make independent decisions concerning his treatment and the parents have to decide on his behalf on the most appropriate care that he can get. The parents have a right to their faith and the physician respected that right by allowing them to go to the healing service in their church. Quality of Life Contextual Features Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy Justice and Fairness James’ quality of life has been impacted greatly in a negative James is a child who cannot make medical decision and this manner because of delayed treatment after the infection that led duty is reserved to the parents. I believe that the parents were to kidney failure which requires immediate transplant. not just and fair when they denied the minor the requisite life- James’ twin brother is still a minor and the only one with a saving treatment and instead took him for healing service in matching kidney. Therefore, his quality of life will be reduced their church. too if the parents consent to the donation. This option is the only Samuel is also a minor with no legal capacity to make medical one to save his life but with long-term or future medical decisions concerning the need to donate his matching kidney concerns for Mike in later life. Samuel will have reduced quality to his brother. I believe that he would be devastated in the life. future if he learns that his kidney could have saved his only The entire family will suffer in the event that James fails to brother from dying. it will never be fair and just for him to receive the required treatment and passes on. The father is trying accept the truth if the parents do not consent to the transplant to come to the realization that his faith has not offered the much- and donation. needed intervention and healing. He does not understand how The parents have the autonomy to make decision as per the his faith is not enough for God to heal his son from the physician’s recommendations. Further, they are independent devastating condition as soon as possible. to choose praying for a miracle to occur to save their son and continue risking James’ future life. They are confused because they do not to cause any harm but do good to both their sons based on their faith. They are not sure if believing in God to heal James or allowing Samuel to donate his kidney is the right decision (Christen et al., 2017). The doctor is keen on treating James in the best medical way but understand that he or she must respect the independent decisions made by the parents. 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) I believe that the case is a delicate balance among the players in relation to the four principles of medical ethics. The physician and the parents must have the best interest of James and ensure that he can survive. Consequently, they should not do any harm but good to James so that he can live a quality life. Therefore, the most pressing medical principle is beneficence on all parties involved; especially the parents of the minor. I believe that they should focus on what the doctors are recommending because of the seriousness of the child’s health situation. The risks of not attaining the treatment or delaying it are fatal. However, the parents are more concerned about their independence or autonomy (Church of England, 2017). They have at one time ignored the physician’s advice and relied on their faith but with no tangible results. The couple loves their children and has no intention to cause harm. However, their increased focus on autonomy is delaying treatment for James and worsening his condition. This delay in seeking treatment has led to the current state and will obviously affect Samuel if they decide that he donates a kidney to his brother. The remaining kidney may also face the risk of failing at one point in Samuel’s life. I believe that while the couple wants to be beneficence to their son, their choices have resulted in malificence and an injustice to the two sons. The implication is that they must focus on the beneficence as the main ethical principle in this situation as opposed to their autonomy. 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) Christian should rank the four principles based on their aim and impact. I believe that beneficence is a critical principle because in any medical situation; doing what is good should prevail above all the issues. Beneficence is a primary duty for a Christian. More importantly, Christian ethics go beyond the morality and moral standards of beneficence. All people are expected to practice beneficence as it comes from the greatest commandment of love; especially the love for a neighbor as one loves themselves (Mathew 22: 39 NIV). As such, if possible, beneficence entails showing benevolence. The foundation of good deeds is the teaching of Jesus Christ. Goodwill is a value in God’s kingdom. We should not constrain ourselves to doing what is needed legally but going beyond and ensuring that our actions are based on genuine love. An individual should take another mile and demonstrate their love that exceeds the legal duties. Secondly, nonmaleficence follows beneficence because it implores on an individual not to do harm. It follows that when beneficence is attained, then those involved are safe and believe that good should always prevail in any action that a Christian undertakes. Justice is third in this priority list since it shows that one is fair and does not want to cause undue harm at the expense of others (Church of England, 2017). Lastly, autonomy is a principle that focuses on increased independent choice and decisions. It follows that we can only exercise autonomy if the benefits from such independence do not harm others in any situation. The implication is that beneficence and not causing harm are the most important from a Christian worldview. References: Church of England (2017). Medical Ethics: A Christian Perspective. Retrieved from https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/201711/Medical%20Ethics%20a%20Christian%20Perspective.pdf Christen, M. Ineichen, C. & Tanner, C. (2014). How “moral” are the principles of biomedical ethics? A cross-domain evaluation of the common morality hypothesis. BMC Medical Ethics, vol.15, No.47. New International Version (NIV) Bible
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: HEALING AND AUTONOMY

Healing and Autonomy
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

HEALING AND AUTONOMY

2

Healing and Autonomy
Question 1

I think that despite the physician observing Mike making decisions that are irrational
and harmful to his son James, he should grant Mike the needed patient autonomy. Healthcare
ethics instruct providers to ensure and respect patient autonomy when making care decisions.
The principle of autonomy allows patients to decide without coercion about the care services
they wish to receive and those they do not want (Entwistle, Carter, Cribb, & McCaffery,
2010). The physician, on the other hand, is tasked with offering comprehensive information
for the patient to understand their circumstances, care interventions, and the outcomes of all
possible decisions for them to make informed decisions.

The physician should try his/her best to explain and detail the outcomes on James,
including how the faith healing has failed James but avoid coercing Mike as this may strain
their doctor-patient relationship. Having provided comprehensive information on the
situation and outcomes, the physician should then allow Mike to make the final decision and
respect it without further questions. The least the physician can do is to ask Mike to seek
opinions from other trusted family members like a close relative to evaluate his decisions
before implementing. Otherwise, no matter how irrational Mike’s decisions are, the ...


Anonymous
Really helped me to better understand my coursework. Super recommended.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags