Various factors influence the process of healing in a patient. The process of delivering healthcare observes certain protocols in determining the type of treatment to be administered on a patient. Autonomy in healthcare delivery refers to the power of patients to decide on the treatment plans that feel are effective on them. Patients have the right to choose the methods that should be used in administering health intervention to them. However, for the case of young patients, autonomy is entrusted to the parents. The autonomy of parents and guardians over the health of their children should be exercised with sobriety as it affects the healing process of the patients.
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?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The physician should not allow Mike to continue making decisions regarding the treatment process of James. The decisions that Mike takes are proving to be impractical and are causing pain and suffering to James unintentionally, which compromises the ethical principle of nonmaleficence as practiced in healthcare delivery (Burton et al. 2019). The physician will show Justice to James by making such a critical decision that would improve the chance of James’s survival. It is a moral obligation for the physician to make a decision that extends justice to James.
Moreover, the action of the physician to prevent Mike from making further decisions regarding the health of James is a gesture of mercy and kindness to James for the suffering his has undergone without his consent. The decision of preventing Mike from making further decisions on the health of James is not a sign of disrespect to the patient's autonomy. Mike is acting on behalf of his son, and he is not doing so in the best interest of James, which is an abuse of autonomy (Case Study). The physician is justified in so doing because the values of biomedical practice prioritizes saving lives and any other factors that would comprise that co-value should be avoided. Moreover, the physician will show boldness in making critical decisions in the face of difficult situations.
How Christians Ought to Think about Sickness and Health
Christians should have a pragmatic view of the subject of sickness and health. Christians should realize that sickness is a condition that is caused by ill health. Christians should perceive sickness as a biological disorder that is rectifiable through biological interventions (Burton et al. 2019). Besides, Christians should shun from perceiving sickness as a spiritual issue, but rather, they should approach it like a normal human nature that can be managed by human intervention.
How Christians Should Think about Medical Intervention
Christians should perceive medical intervention as a credible practice that bases on human principles of mercy, goodwill, and kindness to fellow humanity. Christians should view medical intervention as a human act of expressing help and assistance to the sick and suffering. Besides, Christians should understand that medical intervention is a legitimate exercise that is guided by ethics and moral values in providing practical biological solutions to sicknesses (Burton et al. 2019). Moreover, Christians should shun from perceiving medical intervention as a competitor in faith. As far as faith heals at times, medical interventions have almost absolute assurance of practicality compared to faith. Christians should understand that medical practices bases on proven factual procedures and their purposes to save the life of people but not challenge or compete with their spiritual inclination.
What Mike Should Do as a Christians?
As a true Christian, Mike should exercise justice as it is highly prescribed in Christianity doctrines. Mike should do allow the physicians to make decisions on the way they felt best for James. As a good Christian, Mike should notice that he has made several decisions that have inflicted more pain on James, and therefore, it would be fair if he relinquishes the role of decision making to the physicians (Björk, 2019). James should realize that he abused the autonomy that was entrusted to him on behalf of James. Therefore, it would be better to give the physicians a chance to execute what they perceive as being helpful to James. He should allow the physicians to conduct the Kidney transplant to save James from undue suffering. Moreover, Mike should consider revising his interpretation of Christian principles.
How Mike should Reason about Trusting God and Treating James in Relation to honoring the Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence in James's Care
The reasoning of Mike should be informed by the notion that he is acting upon the autonomy of James, and therefore, he should do whatever is in the best interest of James. James should be keen on his reasoning to ensure that his decisions depict mercy, kindness, and charity as defined in both the Christian doctrines and the principle of beneficence practiced in healthcare delivery (Björk, 2019). Mike should focus his thoughts on actions that would avoid pain to James and which would offer James a chance to enjoy life.
How a Spiritual Needs Assessment Would Help the Physician to Assist Mike in Determining Appropriate Interventions for James and his Family.
A spiritual needs assessment would be very relevant in the case of Mike. The spiritual needs assessment will allow the physician to understand the beliefs and spiritual values of Mike, and this will help in formulating approaches that will improve the ability of Mike to make sound decisions in protecting the health of James (Pollard, Sun & Regier, 2019). Understanding the spiritual needs of Mike will enable the physician to prescribe and propose an intervention that respects the religious needs of Mike. At the same time, they protect the health of James and the rest of Mike's family.
Moreover, a spiritual needs assessment will allow the physician to understand the possible misconceptions that could be affecting the ability of Mike to take bold interventions in protecting the health of family members. Religious misconceptions can be a big factor that would compromise vulnerable believers into losing faith in medical procedures. The spiritual needs assessment forum will allow the physician a chance to guide Mike on how the balance between spiritual matters and healthcare matters (Pollard, Sun & Regier, 2019). Nevertheless, the spiritual needs assessment forum will allow Mike to self-reflect on how his spiritual affiliations influence his ability to make sound decisions concerning the condition of James and the rest of the family members. The spiritual needs assessment will work in improving the sobriety of Mike in making interventions that give Mike a chance to heal.
In totality, responsible patient autonomy should be characterized by sobriety in the processes of decision making. The patient should disapprove of the autonomy of Mike over the health of James. Christians should think of sickness as a biological disorder that can be cured with human ability. Mike should allow the physicians to execute the treatment plan that they think is in the best interest of James. The spiritual needs assessments will allow the physician to understand the religious misconceptions that are incapacitating the ability of Mike to make appropriate decisions regarding James' condition.
References
Burton, E., Clayville, K., Goldsmith, J., & Mattei, N. (2019). The Heart of the Matter: Patient Autonomy as a Model for the Wellbeing of Technology Users. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 13-19).
Björk, J. (2019). A common ethical dilemma in the clinical setting concerns the trade-off between beneficence and respecting patients' autonomy. Lakartidningen, 116.
Case Study: Healing and Autonomy. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY.
Pollard, S., Sun, S., & Regier, D. A. (2019). Balancing uncertainty with patient autonomy in precision medicine. Nature Reviews Genetics, 20(5), 251-252.
