Patient’s autonomy is the decision or opinion a patient has concerning his illness (Timmins and Caldeira, 2017). A patient has a right to make decisions of his or her medical care and treatment. Mike and Joanne being the parents of the patient, James, think that faith will help heal their son. This is however not the case. James’ health is deteriorating overtime. Mike and Joanne are foregoing treatment in the belief that prayer and faith will heal their son.
James is a minor and he thus cannot express his autonomy right as a patient. Being a minor, James parents become the legal decision makers for his patient autonomy right. James’ parents should have consulted him before making any medical decision for him despite his age. Foregoing dialysis on the ground of faith places James in danger. The physician, is a registered and trusted medical practitioner. He should let James’ parents make decisions regarding their son’s health. But should try to intervene in the decisions James parents make. Intervention by the physician should be trying to talk to James’ parents to consider James opinion on his treatment without being coaxed. The physician trying to be rational about the decisions James parents make, is not a disrespect to a patient’s autonomy. The physician here will be helping where he can in accordance to his medical competence and professionalism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Christianity stipulates that morality and actions should be based upon doing good. This goodness makes beneficence priority in an action. From the case study, James parents were acting in the best intentions of their son according to what they believed as Christians. Mike and Joanne are staunch Christians and have great faith in miracles and prayer. Christians will do what is best for their loved ones from the teachings of Christianity. Parents will show love and act in the best interest at all time for the wellbeing of their loved ones. Faith makes them believe that prayer will heal their loved ones. To Christians, an illness is just a test of their faith. They should however let medical practitioners do what is in the best interest for the well-being of their loved ones.
A Christian’s decisions should be wholly dependent on the benefits they present to the others. Decisions should be ethically based on utilitarianism. As a Christian, Mike should have faith that medical intervention will help improve his son’s health. He should not be selfish to be the only one to make decisions about James. He should give James a chance to give an opinion of what he feels would be best for his health.
The Christian understanding of medical intervention is based on the following principles, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and independence. Parents make decisions concerning their children in medical care to benefit their children basing on the set principles of decision making in Christianity. Parents would not in any case want to do any harm to their children in the decisions they make. This action indicates the non-maleficence principle by parents to their children in medical interventions.
The principle of non-maleficence stipulates that a Christian should not harm others in the intentions they have for them. Christians are obligated to be just and fair in decision making and in their daily activities (Musa, 2017). Justice stands for the respect for other people’s rights and respect for the morally acceptable laws in Christianity. Christian values are given so as to give each other chances in the decisions a Christian makes, that are for welfare of others. Mike and Joanne should give a chance this time to James to give an opinion for his medical intervention. They should also allow Samuel, James twin, to donate a kidney to James since he is the only match for James tissue.
Contextual features are the ways which a particular case occurs in the professional, family, spiritual, economic, legal and formal contexts. Contextual features influence clinical decisions by physicians in hospital (Balboni, Fitchett 2017). James parents were initially partial and guided by their faith in making a decision about James’ health. Mike and Joanne relied wholly on their faith and what they felt to be right. James parents were disputed when the twin brother was an exact match for a kidney transplant. This comes even after Mike and Joanne are willing to let other persons and themselves donate a kidney but not their son Samuel. This does not demonstrate fairness and equality to all those affected by this condition. They are not just in determining the fate and opinion of James who is likely to die if another kidney is not transplanted.
James needs a kidney transplant to address his medical condition. Mike is undecided if he should let Samuel provide a kidney or believe in God for a miracle. James parents did not initially discuss with him what he wanted. The physician should try to convince Mike to take time and ask James what he wants. The physician should also try to make James parents understand that a medical intervention is crucial to help improve James health. A spiritual needs assessment of Mike and the other persons involved in James care should be done by the physician. The assessment is to enable him to give the most appropriate interventions. From his assessment, the physician will provide an appropriate intervention which does not compromise with the faith of those involved. James opinion should be paramount to deliberate on the best intervention for his medical care.
References
Timmins, F., And Caldeira, S. (2017) Assessing the Spiritual Needs of Patients. Nursing Standards. Vol. 31, No. 29, Pp. 47.
Musa, A. S. (2017) Spiritual Care Intervention and Spiritual Well-Being. Journal of Holistic Nursing. Vol. 35, No.1, Pp.53-61.
Balboni, T., Fitchett, G., Handzo, G. F., Johnson, K., Koenig, H. G., Pargament, K., And Steinhauser, K. E. (2017) State of The Science of Spirituality and Palliative Care Research. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. Vol. 54, No. 3, Pp. 441-453.
