Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion

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 and four boxes approach.

Based on the “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” and other required topic Resources, you will complete the “Applying the Four Principles: Case Study” document that includes the following: Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Part 1: Chart

This chart will formalize the four principles and four boxes approach 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.

Include this reference
Hoehner, P. (2020). Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative. Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care. Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion

Medical indications (Beneficence and Nonmaleficence)

Medical indications include caring, diagnosing, and providing effective interventions for patients (Pipien, 2018). They are the facts and interpretations about the patient’s condition. Regarding the Healing and Autonomy case study, James suffers from an acute glomerulonephritis, thus needs immediate treatment. As such, he requires a regular dialysis and a kidney transplant within a year to sustain his condition. Before James’ kidney damaged, the attending physician suggested immediate dialysis, however, Mike and Joan opted for a spiritual healing where John was prayed for over a healing service. Unfortunately, James didn’t heal and the couples decided to return to the hospital. In turn, the nephrologist informed them that James’ condition deteriorated due to treatment delays Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion.

Within this context, James’ parents acted at the best interest of their son and opted for spiritual healing. This was after they attended` a healing service where a close friend regained mobility after suffering from a serious stroke. Mike and Joan did not intend to harm James; as Christians, they put their faith in God despite knowing that James condition could worsen if the physician failed to conduct the dialysis immediately. Even though Mike and Joan’s decision affected immediate treatment and indirectly worsened James condition, healthcare practitioners have an obligation to exercise beneficence and non-maleficence at all cost. As such, they should continue providing care to better James life and involve his parents in decision making regardless of the situation.

Patient Preferences (Autonomy)

The autonomy principle underpins that all adults of sound mind have the power to make rational decisions and a right to determine what shall be done with their bodies (Westin, 2018); however, when a patient is a minor or mentally unstable, the parent or immediate family will assume his role and make decision based on his best interest.

Within this context, James is a minor (8 years old) and lacks the capacity to make informed decision. As such, his parents have assumed the decision making role on his behalf.

Here, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joan about their son’s condition after diagnosing him. In turn, the parents assumed James autonomy role and took him to church for a healing service instead of placing him on dialysis. Although Mike and Joan’s choice contradicted the physician’s suggestions, he respected their service healing pursuit. Upon returning, the nephrologist welcomed them and continued to diagnose James. He informed them that James needs a kidney transplant and screened several church members to determine a kidney that matches James’ as per Mike and Joan’s wish. Unfortunately, only Samuel’s kidney matched James’. Upon delivering the news to Mike and Joan, the doctor adhered to the autonomy principle by allowing them to make the transplant decisions involving their sons.

Quality of Life (Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy)

Quality of life is an important consideration in medical care. It incorporates the three ethical principles to promote a patients’ physical, psychological, and social well-being. Even though James quality of life deteriorated, the physician exercised autonomy and allowed Mike and Joan to seek spiritual intervention as the first treatment option. He also informed them about Samuel’s kidney being a match and allowed them to make informed transplant decision. Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion

Importantly, Mike and Joan and the healthcare practitioners have a responsibility to practice beneficence and non-maleficence to provide quality care and save James’ life. They should make good decisions that does not harm nor compromise the patient’s quality of life. Besides, James parents seek informed consent from their sons before allowing the doctor to conduct the transplant to avoid hurting them and ensure they are satisfied with it despite being minors.

Contextual Features (Justice and Fairness)

Justice and fairness implies that patients have a right to fair and impartial treatment. Even though James condition worsened, the physician and James parents should act at the patient’s best interest to uphold justice and fairness. Also, the nephrologist can only use Samuel’s kidney if Joan and Mike consent and give him the go ahead. Importantly, Mike and Joan must inform Samuel about the transplant issue and consider the long-term impact of their actions to ensure justice and fairness prevail. Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion

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)

Christian world view argues that we were created in the image and likeness of God, and we should thus seek spiritual health through prayers and care for our bodies (Hoehner, 2020). Within the healing and autonomy case study, the principles would be specified and weighted based on the need to care and protect human body through making right decisions and not indulging in harmful activities.

Here, Christians would accord autonomy more weight, followed by beneficence, non-maleficence and lastly justice and fairness. Autonomy is prioritized because God created man in his own image and likeness and granted him the free will to make decision according to his teachings. The decision should acknowledge his teachings and strengthen our paths, hence, ascertaining beneficence as the second principle (Ephesians 3:5). Beneficence abides by God’s teaching where human beings are required to do good at all costs. The third principle non-maleficence falls under the doing good teaching and dictates a caregiver’s moral obligation to relieve suffering and ensure the patient doesn’t incur any harm (De Roubaix, 2019)Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion. It abides with Ephesians teaching where Christians are mandated to practice kindness, tenderness, and desist from bitterness and harmful acts (3:6). Lastly, the justice and fairness principle is rooted in Christian world view and argues that everyone’s desires and needs are important. It means considering the three principles by treating and caring for patients with at most compassion, dignity, and love.

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)

Christian ethics is not just a legalistic or licentious set of rules but a way of life in Christ. According to Christian world view, caring for physical life and body is a significant consent. Christians are called to care for the physical world by relieving the body from suffering, helping it flourish, and fulfilling its purpose (Hoehner, 2020). Considering the above teachings, Christians would balance the four principles according to Christianity values and beliefs. Here, Christians would prioritize beneficence as the first option, non-maleficence as the second option, autonomy as the third, and justice as the last principle. Beneficence refers to the act of mercy, charity, and kindness (De Roubaix, 2019)Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion. It is among the fruits of the holy spirit and inspires us to do what is right. Here, James parents had their son’s best interest at heart when they opted for spiritual healing and seek further medical interventions when the spiritual intervention failed.

The second principle, non-maleficence would ensure that James get protected from any harm and relieved from suffering by consenting to the transplant decision. Importantly, the autonomy principle will prompt James’ parents to make informed transplant decision while considering James’ and Samuel’s views. Lastly, justice and fairness would improve James’ quality of life. Mike and Joan would consider it last to ensure all the three principles (autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence) are incorporated within the treatment intervention to improve the patient’s quality of life.

References

De Roubaix J. A. (2011). Beneficence, non-maleficence, distributive justice and respect for patient autonomy–reconcilable ends in aesthetic surgery? Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery: JPRAS, 64(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.03.034

Hoehner, P. (2020). Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative. Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care.

Pipien I. (2018). Beneficence and nonmaleficence in care. Nursing Ethics, 63(824), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soin.2018.02.012

The Holy Bible: New King James Version. (1982). Ephesians 3.5-6

Westin A. (2018). ‘Despite Circumstance’: The Principles of Medical Ethics and the Role of Hope. The New bioethics: a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body, 24(3), 258–267. Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion

ORDER HERE

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

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences

Autonomy

Medical indications include caring for patients, diagnosing them, and providing effective interventions (Pipien, 2018).

Regarding the Healing and Autonomy case study, James suffers from an acute glomerulonephritis, thus needs immediate treatment. As such, he requires a regular dialysis and a kidney transplant within a year to sustain his condition.

Before James’ kidney damaged, the attending physician suggested immediate dialysis, however, Mike and Joan opted for a spiritual healing where John was prayed for over a healing service. Unfortunately, James didn’t heal and the couples decided to return to the hospital. In turn, The nephrologist informed them that James’ condition deteriorated due to treatment delays.

Within this context, James’ parents acted at the best interest of their son and opted for spiritual healing. This was after they witnessed a healing service where a close friend regained mobility after suffering from a serious stroke. Mike and Joan did not intend to harm James. As Christians, they put their faith in God even though the physician informed them that James condition could worsen if they failed to conduct the dialysis immediately.

Importantly, Mike and Joan’s decision to some extent affected immediate treatment and indirectly worsened James condition, however, healthcare practitioners are obligated to exercise beneficence and non-maleficence at all cost. As such, they should continue providing care to better James life and involve his parents in decision making regardless of the situation.

The autonomy principle underpins that all adults of sound mind have the power to make rational decisions and a right to determine what shall be done with their bodies (Westin, 2018). In case the patient is a minor or mentally unstable, the parent will assume the role and make the decision based on the minor’s best interest.

Within this context, James is a minor (8 years old) and lacks the capacity to make informed decision. As such, his parents will assume the decision making role on his behalf.

Quality of Life

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features

Justice and Fairness

Even though James quality of life deteriorated, the physician exercised autonomy and allowed Mike and Joan to seek spiritual intervention. He also informed them about Samuel’s kidney being a match and allowed them to make informed transplant decision.

Importantly, Mike and Joan and the healthcare practitioners have a responsibility to practice beneficence and non-maleficence to provide quality care and save James’ life.

Understandably, Mike and Joan should inform their sons about the occurrence before taking the procedure to avoid hurting them and ensure they are satisfied with their actions despite being minors.

Mike and Joan’s decision to opt for spiritual intervention impacted care plan and worsened James situation. Upon returning to the hospital, the physician gave them a dialysis and transplant option. Unfortunately, Mike and Joan were skeptical after Samuel’s kidney became the only match for James.

Here, the physician should act at the patient’s best interest to uphold justice and fairness; however, he can only use Samuel’s kidney if Joan and Mike consent and give him the go ahead. Importantly, the parents must inform Samuel of the occurrence and consider the long-term impact of their actions to ensure justice and fairness prevail.

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)

Christian world view argues that we were created in the image and likeness of God, and we should thus seek spiritual health through prayers and care for our bodies (Hoehner, 2020)Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion. Within the healing and autonomy case study, the principles would be specified and weighted based on the need to care and protect human body through making right decisions and not indulging in harmful activities.

Lastly, the justice and fairness principle is rooted in Christian world view and argues that everyone’s desires and needs are important. It means loving our neighbors as we love ourselves, hence treating and caring for patients with at most compassion, dignity, and love.

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)

Christian ethics is not just a legalistic or licentious set of rules but a way of life in Christ. According to Christian world view, caring for physical life and body is a significant consent. Christians are called to care for the physical world by relieving the body from suffering, helping it flourish, and fulfilling its purpose (Hoehner, 2020). Considering the above teachings, Christians would balance the four principles according to Christianity values and beliefs. Here, Christians would prioritize beneficence as the first option, non-maleficence as the second option, autonomy as the third, and justice as the last principle. Beneficence refers to the act of mercy, charity, and kindness (De Roubaix, 2019). It is among the fruits of the holy spirit and inspires us to do what is right. Here, James parents had their son’s best interest at heart when they opted for spiritual healing and seek further medical interventions when the spiritual intervention failed.

References:

De Roubaix J. A. (2011). Beneficence, non-maleficence, distributive justice and respect for patient autonomy–reconcilable ends in aesthetic surgery?. Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS, 64(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2010.03.034

Hoehner, P. (2020). Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative. Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care.

ORDER NOW

Pipien I. (2018). Bienfaisance et non-malfaisance dans les soins [Beneficence and nonmaleficence in care]. Soins; la revue de reference infirmiere, 63(824), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soin.2018.02.012

Westin A. (2018). ‘Despite Circumstance’: The Principles of Medical Ethics and the Role of Hope. The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body, 24(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2018.1487703 Case Study on Biomedical Ethics Essay Discussion