Part 1: Chart
| Autonomy |
| This is a principle that described an individual’s freedom to make their own fully-informed medical decisions (Beauchamp, 2016). James is an underage kid and therefore, could not exercise his autonomy. Hence, his parents were involved in all his medical decisions before any step was taken. When James was brought to the hospital, the attending physician made a suggestion of immediate dialysis. However, Mike and Joanne, James' parents, were provided with the opportunity to make a medical decision based on the suggestion that the physician had presented. After a lengthy discussion, they decided to not take the treatment and instead, rely on their faith. These decisions were made at their discretion, and no coercion was used to force them to choose the dialysis treatment for their son. |
| Beneficence |
| This requires that procedures should be conducted with the intention of benefitting the patient being treated (Beauchamp, 2016). While suggesting the dialysis treatment, the physician was interested in what was right for James' health. James's parents were acting in his best interests despite the medical indications that his condition would be worse if not treated. This is because typically, cases of kidney failure based on strep infections can be healed without the need for further treatment or with the use of antibiotics. However, James' condition was severe enough to require treatment immediately. This was all done to ensure the well-being of James in his critical medical condition. |
| Non-Maleficence |
| This principle states that the procedure provided is not harmful to the patient involved or society (Veatch, 2019). James’ parents had no intention of harming him and came back when his condition did not improve. This was in accordance with their agreement to return him after week following the faith healing services |
| Justice |
| This refers to the idea that the factors contributed by innovative treatments should undergo equal distribution to various groups in society (Beauchamp, 2016). In this case, when James's kidney deteriorated, he needed a kidney transplant. The opportunity for James to receive a donor was shared among all those who were available. Several individuals underwent different tests to identify whether they were ideal donors. This included his parents and other members of society. When none of them were ideal matches, the physician made a suggestion that Samuel, James’s brother, could also be considered as a tissue donor. However, his parents were unwilling to involve Samuel in the process. |
Part 2: Evaluation
Based on the Christian worldview, beneficence acts as the principle that is highly prioritized in comparison to other existing principles (Carlin, 2019). This is because James' parents were working with his best interest in mind. They had faith that their some would receive healing through prayers. After considering the suggestion of their doctor that James should undergo dialysis, the parents made the decision to put more trust in their faith instead. This was based on a previous sermon they had received from their pastor a week before. They had also observed a friend gaining mobility after a stroke following her attendance in the healing service. Hence, following these observations and their faith, they believed that it would be better to take James to a faith healing service instead. In this way, they indicated a preference for prayer over the treatment that had been suggested due to their faith.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Based on the principle of biomedics, medical decisions should be made in a way that is beneficial to the patient. This duty is viewed as self-evident and rational (Veatch, 2019). Based on this definition, it is clear that the patient's parents were acting in a way that they believed was beneficial to James. They made the decision based on the belief that taking James to the faith healing services would be more beneficial in comparison to letting him receive immediate dialysis treatment. Moreover, when his condition did not improve, they returned him to the hospital for better treatment.
Non-maleficence would then be ranked second to beneficence. This is a principle which makes an affirmation for the need for medical competence, and the avoidance or minimization of risks or harm to the patient (Beauchamp, 2016). This is because, based on Christian teachings, parents should not harm their children in any way. This could be seen through the reluctance by both parents to let Samuel be a kidney donor despite the elevated need for James to have a kidney transplant. Moreover, they both hesitated to expose James to any considerable medical treatment, if an alternative Christian method existed. The third principle, based on the Christian worldview, is justice and fairness. The Christian perspective supports fair treatment to all individuals despite their backgrounds. This means that the needs of all those involved have to be taken care of. In this case, James' parents were willing to receive donors from all those who were ready with inclusion of themselves and various family members. The last principle is autonomy, which means that rational individuals take part in the making of informed and voluntary decisions. This means that the autonomy of the patient has to be respected. Due to his age, James could not be autonomous in his medical decisions. Therefore, his parents acted as rational agents and, instead, made medical decisions for him. This involved in engagement in discussions between the two parents, which resulted in making decisions that were fee and voluntary.
References
Beauchamp, T. L. (2016). Principlism in bioethics. In Bioethical decision making and argumentation (pp. 1-16). Springer, Cham.
Carlin, N. (2019). Pastoral Aesthetics: A Theological Perspective on Principlist Bioethics . Oxford University Press.
Veatch, R. M., & Guidry-Grimes, L. K. (2019). The basics of bioethics . Routledge.
