Fluent Essays

In addition to the topic study materials, use the chart you completed and questions you answered in the Topic 3 about Case Study: Healing and Autonomy as the basis for your responses in this assignment. Answer the following questions about a patients spiritual needs in light of the Christian worldview. 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 a disrespect of a patients autonomy? Explain your rationale. 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 he reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is truly honoring the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in Jamess care? In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the physician assist Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others involved in his care? Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials. While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance. Benchmark Information This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies: BS in Health Sciences 1.2; BS Nursing (RN to BSN ) 5.2 Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups. Case Study: Healing and Autonomy Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born 8 years ago. James is currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection. The spread of the A streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. Usually cases of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep infection tend to improve on their own or with an antibiotic. However, James also had elevated blood pressure and enough fluid buildup that required temporary dialysis to relieve. The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After some time of discussion with Joanne, Mike informs the physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God. Mike and Joanne had been moved by a sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and also had witnessed a close friend regain mobility when she was prayed over at a healing service after a serious stroke. They thought it more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing service instead of putting James through multiple rounds of dialysis. Yet, Mike and Joanne agreed to return to the hospital after the faith healing services later in the week, and in hopes that James would be healed by then. Two days later the family returned and was forced to place James on dialysis, as his condition had deteriorated. Mike felt perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James earlier. Had he not enough faith? Was God punishing him or James? To make matters worse, Jamess kidneys had deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary matter and was in need of a kidney transplant. Crushed and desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate one of their own kidneys to James, but they were not compatible donors. Over the next few weeks, amidst daily rounds of dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also offered to donate a kidney to James. However, none of them were tissue matches. James’s nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was stable, given the regular dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year. Given the desperate situation, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, but as of yet had not been considered—James’s brother Samuel. Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have his other son Samuel lose a kidney or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real testing of his faith will come in? Mike reasons, “This time around it is a matter of life and death. What could require greater faith than that?” © 2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. 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 · James was earlier diagnosed with strep throat infection. · The infection deteriorated to Acute glomerulonephritis which led to kidney failure. · Acute glomerulonephritis eventually led to acute kidney failure. · The patient had elevated blood pressure and fluid build-up that required temporary dialysis to relieve. · Proposed measures of evaluation included immediate dialysis to relieve the fluid up. · The patient condition further deteriorated, and a kidney transplant was required. · Daily dialysis is used as a temporary intervention. · The patient will require a kidney transplant · The patient who is 8 year lacks the capacity for decision-making · The parents are the surrogate, and are required to make decision in the best informed decisions for the patient. · The physician decision has to abide by the surrogates decision. · The physician provided adequate decision to the parents to make an informed question. · The physician was not consulted in the decision to delay the dialysis and pursue healing. Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy Contextual Features Justice and Fairness · Immediate dialysis would have prevented further worsening of the patient’s acute glomerulonephritis condition · The healing intervention negatively affected the quality of life of the patient. · After worsening of the condition, regular dialysis was required to stabilize the condition of the patient. · The patient required a kidney transplant within a year. It was the parent’s choice to decide whether the patient would undergo the kidney transplant. · The patients parents are strong Christian believers and believe in the power of religion. · The patient’s parents have an alternative to therapeutic intervention which affects their commitment to the prescribed treatment procedures. · Decisions like the immediate dialysis after detection of fluid buildup. ©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) The principle of nonmaleficence is an obligation not to harm, cause suffering or pain. In this case, the physician should brief the parents on the possible negative implications if James fails to undergo dialysis. This would make the parents think about their decisions carefully before deciding whether they should take James to faith healing. In this case, the principle of justice would be encouraged by ensuring that the patient received healthcare resources fairly and equitably. The fairness to the patient should take precedence. For example, the physician should advocate for immediate dialysis and inform the parents of the likely consequences when it is not carried out soonest. This would communicate to the parents the gravity of the situation and the possible outcomes when it is not immediately carried out. The principle of beneficence offers the physician an obligation to act for the benefit of the patient. It is placed upon them to defend the rights of others, remove conditions that will cause harm, and help people with disabilities. In this case, the physician should explain to the parents how the delay in treatment was associated with the deterioration of James kidneys. Additionally, the physician should also explain to James parents why a kidney is essential for his survival and everyday living. The principle of autonomy accords the patient or their surrogates the power to make their rational decisions and moral choices. Additionally, they should be allowed to exercise their capacity for self-determination. However, this should not be extended to a person who lack the capacity to act autonomously either due to developmental, mental, or physical inequities. In this case, James lacks the autonomy to make decisions and therefore his parents decide what is best for him. 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) A Christian can balance the principle of autonomy by confidently sharing what they advocate for but at the same time. Autonomy allows the patient to advocate their values and preferences. However, autonomy should be weighed against the patients decision-making capacity and knowledge of the clinical condition. The physician should disclose all medical information and treatment options which are necessary for the patient to exercise self-determination. A Christian can also consider the possibility of the action taken not to cause harm in the principle of nonmaleficence. The Christian should weigh benefits against burdens of all interventions the best course of action for the patient. It is important to acknowledge that this may not be aligned with the prioritized Christian beliefs at times. The principle of beneficence requires that each action is for the benefit of the patient. The principle involves promoting the patient’s welfare. The Christian should pursue what is best for the patient even when it entails pursuing medical care in place of healing practices. This ensures that the patient gets the best care. A Christian should also ensure that there is fair, equitable, and appropriate distribution of healthcare resources. This ensures that there is an equal share of the existing resources according to the need, effort, merit, and contribution. Fairness is also encouraged in Christianity. References: Teven, C. M., & Gottlieb, L. J. (2018). The four-quadrant approach to ethical issues in burn care. AMA journal of ethics, 20(6), 595-601. Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17-28.