In 200-250 words, respond to the following: Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James, or would that mean disrespect of a patient autonomy? Explain your rationale.
Physicians should intervene in making crucial decisions that affect their patients, including advising the patient’s family to make ethical and sound decisions that prioritize the health of their child. The physician’s decision not to allow Mike to make crucial James medical decisions can be seen as a sound and ethical approach that reduces the risk of James being more exposed to kidney failure. In the first place, Mike has already violated James’ autonomy by failing to involve him in his medical decisions despite his little age (Lindberg, Fagerström, Sivberg & Willman, 2014). The physician should weigh between irrational and harmful decision-making from Mike and the health of James and consider which one comes first. As much as all medical practitioners must consider the spiritual needs of the patient, the beneficence principle comes first, and medical practitioners should perform all the necessary treatments and procedures for the good of the patient. Malfeasance, the second principle, also tends to disqualify Mike as James’ decision-maker since it emphasizes the need for parents to prioritize the health of their children and make decisions that act in their best interests. In this case, taking James to the Church instead of early dialysis cannot be termed as putting James’ acting in his best interests since he ended up in a worse condition as opposed to if he could access the dialysis three days prior.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In 400-500 words, respond to the following: How ought the Christian think about sickness and health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should the reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is truly honoring the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence in James’ care?
Christians are known to emulate Jesus’ suffering and death since they value pain and hardship as a potential transformation of their religious faith. Christians also think that the experience of pain and suffering can potentially bring them closer to God, who suffered for them on the cross. With such a mentality, Christians are prone to making wrong decisions concerning their health, which comes to cost them later on. Concerning sickness and health, Christians ought to embrace science and its medical applications when it comes to prevention and reduction of unnecessary suffering when possible (Webb, Bopp & Fallon, 2013). This approach is also in line with the respect of the sanctity and dignity of human life, which does not promote unnecessary pain and suffering.
Christians should think about medical interventions, coupled with prayers, as an added advantage to their healing of certain diseases or illnesses. God provided humans with the intelligence to discover medical treatments which can be useful in treating known diseases and medical problems. Christians, therefore, should trust in human’s ability to use science in the treatment of medical conditions, and Christians should seek therapeutic interventions as well as pray and have faith in God for their healing.
Mike should consider communication as a crucial component of his decision-making process and involve his entire family in the process. As a Christian, Mike should consider the risks of making James wait for three more days and opting for a kidney transplant, which may not be readily available at their disposal (Webb, Bopp & Fallon, 2013). Consequently, Mike should trust the God-given gift of healing to James through the physician, which is also in line with the best interest of James. Mike would have considered this approach first as he waits on God’s miracle by praying and hoping that Samuel’s kidney matches that of James. This approach is better compared to just waiting on a miracle to happen, yet there is a proven medical option that can alleviate James’ suffering and pain.
For the principle of beneficence, Mike should weigh his decisions based on the best interest of James by prioritizing his health. No parent wishes their child to suffer, and if Mike decides to opt for the kidney transplant, it would be based on the best interest of everyone. Mike should, therefore, place James in the physician’s hands and pray for the treatment process to be successful. For the non-maleficence principle Mike, should make the best medically sound decisions that do not harm their children in any way. With this knowledge in mind, Mike should consider the kidney transplant that would improve his child’s wellbeing in the long-run.
In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual need assessment help the physician assist Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others involved in his care?
A spiritual needs assessment can be crucial in helping physicians make appropriate interventions for their patients and their families or close friends. Using the spiritual needs assessment would be effective in helping the physician to assist Mike in prioritizing needs of James, which are in line with his medical needs (Saguil & Phelps, 2012). The spiritual needs assessments would also be useful in helping the physician to advice Mike on making ethical and boundary considerations concerning his religious beliefs as well as modern medication and consider what comes first. Asking crucial questions like the meaning of hope to Mike can also be useful in improving the nurse understand Mike’s position concerning his spiritual beliefs and enable the physician to best advice Mike on the right way to go. The assessment would also provide Mike and the physician a safe and therapeutic setting that patients can use while discussing their spiritual needs concerning medical care ( Saguil & Phelps, 2012). This approach can be more useful compared to casual consultations and advice since it is based on evidence. The physicians would also be able to integrate Mike’s spiritual resources into James’ care and possibly modify it based on his spiritual needs. Spiritual assessment is a vital step in addressing the spiritual, physical, and mental wellbeing of patients. The assessment can be effective in relieving pain and suffering among patients who have firm spiritual or cultural beliefs.
References
Lindberg, C., Fagerström, C., Sivberg, B., & Willman, A. (2014). Concept analysis: patient autonomy in a caring context. Journal of advanced nursing, 70 (10), 2208-2221.
Saguil, A., Phelps, K. (2012). The Spiritual Assessment. American Family Physician. Retrieved from: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0915/p546.html
Webb, B., Bopp, M., & Fallon, E. A. (2013). A qualitative study of faith leaders’ perceptions of health and wellness. Journal of religion and health, 52 (1), 235-246.
