Fluent Essays

Service:Writing Pages/Words: 5 pages / 1375 words (Double spacing) Education Level: University Language: English (US) Your Deadline: Assignment Topic: Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Subject:Nursing Sources:4 sources required Citation Style: APA 7th edition Description This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case. Organizing the data in this way will help you apply the four principles and four boxes approach. Based on the "Case Study: Healing and Autonomy" and other required topic study materials, you will complete the "Applying the Four Principles: Case Study" document that includes the following: Part 1: Chart This chart will formalize the four principles and four boxes approach and the four-boxes approach by organizing the data from the case study according to the relevant principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Part 2: Evaluation This part includes questions, to be answered in a total of 500 words, that describe how principalism would be applied according to the Christian worldview. Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials. APA style is not required, but solid academic writing is expected. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance. Applying the Four Principles: Case Study Part 1: Chart (60 points) Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible. Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Patient Preferences Autonomy Strep throat infection is responsible for the condition James is suffering. Based on the physician's diagnosis, the condition is acute and needs immediate medical attention because he had initially experienced a glomerulonephritis Kidney failure diagnosis. For this reason, if his condition is not given the right attention, there is a high chance that his life will be impacted adversely. Beneficence directs clinical practitioners to engage in their obligations with the best intentions. In this case, benefice is showcased when the Physician proposes immediate dialysis for James. Besides, considering that James needs a kidney transplant and the operation is likely to threaten Samuel’s life because of the surgery, the physician’s actions are in the best interest of both parties involved (Heale & Shorten,2017). On the other hand, James parents are afraid that the proposition may harm James even after being told that his condition may worsen if necessary, measures are not taken. Concerning James preferences, it is commendable that the Physician obeys and does not question Mike’s decision when he chooses not to engage in dialysis. The physician also permits James parents to seek religious intervention since they believe it will play a crucial role in leveraging his condition. Moreover, although the physician proposes a kidney transplant within a one-year span that may affect James brother in the process, the physician ensures that the final decision on the matter lies in the hands of James parents. There is also little information about how Joanne, their mother, feels about the situation, raising serious concerns about how she feels (Heale & Shorten,2017). There is also nothing in the case study about Samuel's choice and his brother James's situation. They should also be granted a choice since the proposition impacts them both Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy Contextual Features Justice and Fairness Important features that happen before and after a patient experiences treatment determines their quality of life. Based on the James physician, there is a high chance that James life may be saved through a kidney transplant since it will help restore its functioning. However, his father, Mike’s assertion to forego dialysis treatment based on religious autonomy may worsen his son’s health condition to such an extent that he will need a kidney transplant as the only way of saving his life. Although the dialysis treatment may make James experience temporary discomfort, the bottom line is that it will help restore his kidney functioning. However, James did not receive this treatment because of autonomy. His parents chose to rely on their religious faith and their decisions. However, Because of this choice, his quality of life is reducing. Dialysis can sometimes be physically draining and cumbersome, considering James will have to do it three times every week. Nonetheless, if James manages to get a kidney transplant, there is a high chance that his quality of life will improve. However, Samuel will also experience a temporary reduction in his kidney functioning. However, by donating his kidney, Samuel will improve his brother’s quality of life and his because he will not lose his twin, considering that they have a close bond. Non-maleficent is embodied in the case study. Mike tends to struggle with the ideology of why they should endanger Samuel’s life. Joanne and Mike have encountered a dilemma of deciding whether to permit their Samuel to donate his kidney, which may endanger his life or allow James to undergo Kidney dialysis. However, there are serious concerns regarding whether the decision to undergo the kidney transplant or dialysis should fall in the hands of James or Mike. However, based on the circumstances of the case study, it is evident that Mikes religious affiliations and feelings are the major talking point in this decision. There are serious concerns on whether the parents are doing justice to endanger James or Samuel’s life because of their faith. Mike also questions if Justice and fairness make Samuel go through the pain and suffering and the danger of functioning with only one kidney. Generally, contextual features revolve around the legal, social and familial environment that might affect medical decisions. ©2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Part 2: Evaluation Answer each of the following questions about how the four principles and four boxes approach would be applied: 1. In 200-250 words, answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how would each of the principles be specified and weighted in this case? Explain why. (45 points) According to the Christian worldview, James situation may be effectively addressed using the four ethical principles considering that they are important in sorting dilemmas. It is the responsibility of Christians to ensure that they evaluate the decisions and the best choice. While some decisions are critical compared to others, In James situation, the first step is beneficence. While his condition is stable currently, failure to receive adequate treatment may make him lose his life. The first step is engaging in an activity that will play a crucial role in saving his life and improving his quality of life. The second principle is non-Malifence which depends on the fact that relied on some of the harmful implications it could cause in the long run. In this case, the Parents decision was an anon-maleficence choice since they focused on avoiding harm. Christians focus on saving lifer first before anything since the bible says that they should not murder. Only God can give and take a life. Autonomy will be the third principle in the Christian worldview because leveraging his quality of life is important. The final step is Justice and fairness since this may only be possible after the other three principals have been achieved. Justice comes last because the parents are less concerned about the fair and justice issue since their main focus was saving their Son and worrying about the risks they were making their other Son Samuel incur if they suggest a kidney transplant. 2. In 200-250 words, answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian balance each of the four principles in this case? Explain why. (45 points) Based on Christian assertions, each life is granted by God. It is only him that has the liberty to take a life. Nonetheless, understanding that God has offered humans the relevant medical knowledge to sustain life. Based on their world view, the principles would be classified as follows, autonomy, non-maleficence, benefice and justice. The first principle is autonomy, since treating an individual’s freedom as important is an instrumental facet in Christianity. Based on biblical teachings, God created man, allowing him the liberty required to make their choices (WRITER). For instance, the book of genesis shows the power and ability of God to create and respect an individual’s freedom. It comes as the first principle since, after the diagnosis, the physician should seek to inform the guardians, patients or caregivers about it and allow them to make their choices. Non-maleficence will be ranked second since it is the primary principle that providers caregivers did not harm others as they attempt to make decisions that would ultimately benefit the patient. Beneficence will follow it since it is one of the major commands Christians are given by God (McDermott-Levy, Leffers, & Mayaka, 2018). They are requested to love one another. It also plays a crucial role in indicating how people relate and treat each other, including parents and how the caregiver might also attempt to improve the patient's life based on minimum risks levels. Justice would come last because it requires that the other three principles are sustained to be achieved. It also needs all patients, including Samuel, James and any other, equally treated and the resources distributed fairly (Rainer, Schneider & Lorenz, 2018). For this reason, Considering that Samuel will be a kidney donor, in the case, he is also required to be treated as equally important as James. The principle requires that each patient is treated with the same dignity and compassion regardless of background or race. This, based on Christian teaching, is an indicator that everyone before God is the same. They should be trusted equally. References: Heale, R., & Shorten, A. (2017). Ethical context of nursing research. Evidence-based nursing, 20(1), 7-7. McDermott-Levy, R., Leffers, J., & Mayaka, J. (2018). Ethical principles and guidelines of global health nursing practice. Nursing outlook, 66(5), 473-481. Rainer, J., Schneider, J. K., & Lorenz, R. A. (2018). Ethical dilemmas in nursing: An integrative review. Journal of clinical nursing, 27(19-20), 3446-3461. WRITER, H. A. Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative. Retrieved from: https://studycorgi.com/biomedical-ethics-in-the-christian-narrative-essay/