Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative

Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative

Grand Canyon University: PHI-413V

The purpose of this paper is to analyze principalism and explain the meaning of the four principle approach autonomy, nonmaleficenece, beneficence and justice according to this author’s understanding then, each principle will be apply to the case study “Healing and Autonomy” provided by Grand Canyon University.

According to Grand Canyon University (n.d, p.1) lecture notes for week 3 respect for autonomy is “A principle that requires respect for the decision making capacities of autonomous persons” as a nurse I understand that allowing patients to make their own decisions when capable is crucial for their recovery, it provides them with confidence and the dignity they deserve. According to the same notes nonmaleficence is “a principle requiring that people not cause harm to others” (n.d, p.1) as nurses we have the great responsibility to care for our patient’s lives and to not cause harm, this means physical and emotional harm, patients have the right to know what they are at risk for. Beneficence; as health care providers we are required to provide equal benefits to all people not matter the cost, we are require to weigh the benefits gains risk and make decisions on what benefits patients the most. The last principal is justice, this principle requires health providers to provide with fair distribution of benefits regardless of people’s race, skin color, or socioeconomically status.

Autonomy: In this case, Mike and Joanne found out that their son James had kidney failure secondary to glomerulonephritis. They were aware that his condition was acute enough to require immediate care and even though the attending physician suggested immediate dialysis they decided to skip the dialysis, and take James to a faith healing service. Mike and Joana promised to go back to the hospital later the week which they did and by that time James’ condition had deteriorated. The autonomy of the parents was respected, they were allowed to choose what they thought was better for their son James and even though this put James’ life in jeopardy they had the right to choose.

Beneficence: The attending physician believed that James required immediate dialysis to prevent further kidney injury. Mike and Joanne thought that they needed to be faithful and take their son to the healing service to be cure. They had seen friends get better after attending one of this services, they thought that by taking James they would show faith in God and God would heal their son so that he would not need dialysis at all. Both parties, the attending physician and the parents disagreed on what benefits James the most, but is clear that both parties think they know what is best for James. Who is right? both could have been right but, at the end of the case study we find that the Dr. was right and James needed dialysis at that moment.

Nonmaleficence: The attending physician has a moral duty to promote James health and he knows that is imperative for him to get dialysis to help his kidney restore function, the physician does not want to inflict harm or suffering on James but he understands that this is what James needs at this point. The parents believe their son will be cure if they attending the faith healing service, after all they have witness miracles. The physician has a duty to do what is best for his patients and he knows that by waiting more time might make James’ kidney worse than what it is at this time but, he also understand that he has to respect the parents decision. The physician probably knows that Mike and Joanne want what is best for their son, he is respecting the parent’s autonomy. The parents believe that if their son is cured he won’t even need dialysis at all and they will avoid any suffering cause by dialysis.

Justice: this refers to equal and fair distribution of medical services. At first glance this does not seem to play a major role, but James now needed a kidney transplant for his condition was a lot worse after his parents took him back to the hospital after taking him to the healing service. Mike and Joanne were willing to donate one of their kidneys but they were not match, and none of the people willing to be kidney donors were a match either. The nephrologists suggested that James’ brother Samuel could be the donor since they had not found another match and James needed a new kidney within a year. It seems that is right for James but what about Jacob? after all he is only eight years old. In terms of this class James is receiving fair distribution of benefits for what it read in the case study.

Some of the most pressing issues in this case study have to do with the parents trying to prove their faith to God, they believe that by not following the Doctors advice an attending the healing service God will be please with them and cure their son. They are right to put their faith in God, for we read “Blessed are all they that put their trust in him” (Psalm 2:12, King James Version) but is this what God wants them to do? this author believe that this answer is different and personal for every individual. Is our job a human being to stay in tune with the Holy Spirit to be able to make the right decisions.

Is the physician’s responsibility to give the parents all the options they have but also to inform them and make them aware of what could happen if they don’t agree to follow with the plan of care for James. Were the parents aware that if James didn’t get dialysis right at the time the physician suggested, James could end up losing his kidneys and needing a kidney transplant? perhaps Mike and Joanne did not think James’ conditions was as bad as it was. This author believes that the physician has a duty to respect the parent’s decision but he needs to make sure he is making the parents aware of everything that can happen to James if they do not follow the Doctors advice.

According to Meilaender organs “gifts of the body help some to survive longer than they otherwise could” (Meilander, G. 2013, p.89-90). God has given man the intelligence to figure out ways to help our bodies stay alive. Christians believe that organ donation is a miracle from God. In fact Meilander believes people should be more educated on the benefits and blessing this brings. Treatment refusal by patients is something health care provider see very often, is it our job to force them into getting treated. Meilander explains that sometime people are not intending to die but they are just being faithful to God as they understand such faithfulness (Meilander, 2013). People have the right to denied treatment as long as they are alert and oriented they have the freedom to choose and health care providers have the duty to educate patients about the adverse outcomes they are at risk for if they refuse care, this is when we as health providers respect patients autonomy and is not our job to judge them for most of the time they are just trying to prove their faith to God and not trying cause harm or put their lives in jeopardy as we see in the case of Mike and Joanne, they were not trying to cause James any harm they were just trying to help their son.

Every case is different and we cannot automatically choose and answer for every dilemma we come across. We do know that every person and every life is valuable and as health care providers we have a duty to help, care and treat every individual with justice, respect their autonomy and do our very best to help them holistically.

References

Grand Canyon University (GCU), (2015). Case Study: Healing and Autonomy. PHI-413V

Grand Canyon University (GCU) (n.d.) Lecture notes. PHI-413V Lecture 3. Phoenix Az.

Meilaender, G. (2013). Bioethics, a primer for Christians (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://gcumedica.com/digital-resources/wm-b-eerdmans-publisheing-co/2013/bioethics_a-primer-for-christians_ebook_3e.php