Part 1
|
Medical Indications Beneficence and Non-maleficence |
Patient Preferences Autonomy |
|
In the case study, the physician identifies and makes a diagnosis out of the patient’s symptoms The physician reveals that James is suffering from a kidney failure contributed by a strep throat infection. James’ parents are advised that immediate dialysis was important to lower James’ blood pressure and control fluid buildup, which is his best interest. |
Regardless of the physician advice, Mike, the father of James, is reluctant to the clinical intervention. He informs the physician that his son’s healing was solely on their faith to God. The physician synchronizes respect to the autonomy of the patient because they are not forced in choosing a spiritual healing. |
|
Quality of Life Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Autonomy |
Contextual Features Justice and Fairness |
|
Since the preference of the physician and the parents do not coincide. The patient’s quality of life deteriorates. Mike and Joanne decided to forego the dialysis and take James to a healing service where they believed he could receive healing through prayers. Although dialysis was the best choice, the physician could not force his preferred intervention and so they hindered in taking their son to the healing service. |
The health status of James deteriorated as the speculated healing service did not work. It was only fair for the family to consider dialysis as the only hope to treat James, of which they did. His condition stabilized but a permanent solution was needed to fully recover James from his ailing condition. Eventually, James condition required a kidney transplant. All because of the family’s viable decisions that obviously had to meet repercussions. It was difficult to get a matching tissue, however the nephrologist asked them to consider Samuel’ kidney. |
Part 2
The concerns in medical ethics are relevant to church leaders who are obligated to counseling church members in challenging and tempting situations (Baldwin, 2015). These issues are also important to Christian health specialists who find it difficult to make clinical decisions in a world that is very antagonistic to the gospel. Subsequently, Christians are also concerned in medical ethics as they ought to seek and live in accordance with God’s word. Generally, they are obligations that ethically govern the medical practice in the sense that they prescribe what is to be done. However, there are conflicts in health organizations on what basis a clinical intervention is considered ethical.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Unlike the past century where decision-making was considered easy, it has now become a complicated system since medicine and society have been continuously changing (Gillon, 2015). To start with, technology advancements have changed the health providers’ decision making. For instance, with the robotic systems, physicians consider surgical operations for complex cases. Second, because of the awareness of these technology advancements, decisions being made by the public are influenced by technology hence making practices accountable. Third, team working has replaced a solitary physician decision by hosting support of other management personnel that allows the exchange of ideas. Fourth, resource and financial limitations have led to the consideration of making acute decisions in resource distribution. Lastly, and of our interest, a post-Christian society that does not agree with an underlayment of the foundation of decision-making.
In a Christian worldwide view, principalism would be applied in four ways. First, by having the personality of Christ. It is a completely different thing when one is well conversant of correct action in an ethical dilemma, and the same time not having the faith to do it. As in the case study, it is likely that Mike knew that the dialysis would definitely help his son but his faith blinded him in believing that the healing service was the only way his son would get help, autonomy. The same concept may applies in case a physician, nurse or other medical specialists may host a wide range of personal values because of a religious influence. In the case study, it can be revealed that the decisions similar to Mike’s do not measure to the description of care or love. Second, by carrying the cross of Christ. In a religious perceptive, it means that we are to suffer in this world or experience exclusion by not compromising to an ethical situation (Campbell, 2017). Decisions are expected to consequence a result that can be a burden to society. Therefore one should validate the consequence according to its future significance. In the case study, out of the decision Mike and Joanne made, not only did they bring a burden to themselves but also to their friends and church members in search of a matching kidney.
Third, through sharing the mind of Christ. This means that whoever is entrusted to take care of someone should be ready to account for the deeds done upon that person. The health care provider should carry all clinical intervention to the well-being of the human race and to the glory of God, beneficence. Moreover, a human is a special being that requires utmost diligence and tenderness. This is reflected in the case study whereby the nephrologist suggested a long lasting solution, organ transport that would permanently help James. In conclusion, principlism would also be applied by holding the commands of Christ. This is bearing the burdens of others or rather being concerned with solving other people’s problems. Again, the case study shows how the physician cared and made an immediate suggestion of organ transport in pursuit of exploiting the greater good, non-maleficence.
References
Baldwin, C. (2015). Narrative ethics for narrative care. Journal of aging studies , 34 , 183-189.
Campbell, C. S. (2017). Religion and moral meaning in bioethics. In Ethics and Medical Decision-Making (pp. 75-81). Routledge.
Gillon, R. (2015). Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics. Journal of medical ethics , 41 (1), 111-116.
