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.This benchmark assignment assesses the following competencies:BS Nursing (RN to BSN)5.2: Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.I added all but one thing you need in the Word Document below, they are our study materials, I will submit the chart noted above tonight when I get home from work wk_5_rubric.xlsx spirituality_wk_5_final_assignment.docx wk_3_chart_for_wk_5_assessment.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Course Code PHI-413V Class Code PHI-413V-O502 Criteria Content Percentage 70.0\% Decision-Making and Principle of Autonomy 20.0\% Decision-Making, Christian Perspective, and the Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence 20.0\% Spiritual Needs Assessment and Intervention (CoNHCP 5.2) 30.0\% Organization, Effectiveness, and Format 30.0\% Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0\% Argument Logic and Construction 8.0\% Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0\% Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0\% Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0\% Total Weightage 100\% Assignment Title Benchmark - Patients Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis Unsatisfactory (0.00\%) Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are not analyzed according to the principle of autonomy. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are not analyzed according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is not analyzed. Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Sources are not documented. Total Points 200.0 Less than Satisfactory (65.00\%) Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed from both perspectives, but the analysis according to the principle of autonomy is unclear. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, but the analysis is unclear. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is analyzed, but unclear. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Satisfactory (75.00\%) Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed from both perspectives, but the analysis according to the principle of autonomy lack details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence but lacks details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed but lacks details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Good (85.00\%) Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed from both perspectives with details according to the principle of autonomy. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed with details according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed with details. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Excellent (100.00\%) Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed from both perspectives with a deep understanding of the complexity of the principle of autonomy. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed with deep understanding of the complexity of the Christian perspective, as well as with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed with a deep understanding of the connection between a spiritual needs assessment and providing appropriate interventions. Analysis is supported by the case Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Comments All format elements are correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Points Earned PHI-413V Topic 5 Overview Intervention and Ethical Decision-Making Different models of ethical decision-making suggest different steps and priorities, but The important thing to note is that all models are attempting to organize all of the relevant information in a case so that nothing is left out of consideration. Still, the way In which all of the relevant details in a case are considered will always take place within The context of a worldview. As such, the most important determinant of a bioethical Decision is not a methodology but the worldview context in which the methodology is Functioning. Consider, then, how the Christian biblical narrative determines the values that are deemed relevant or important in a case and how different worldviews would impact the decision-making in different cases. In addition, the clinical encounter with patients will require one to at least be familiar with what a patient would need in terms of spiritual care. It is not always expected that health care providers be experts in regards to spiritual care. However, it is important that they at least be facilitators capable of recognizing a patient’s worldview, as well as the persons and resources that would meet a patients spiritual needs. Examine carefully the methods and goals of a spiritual needs assessment in helping to determine a patients spiritual needs. As has been clearly seen in previous topic overviews, the Christian worldview revolves around Jesus Christ and relationship with God through him. The spiritual needs of Christians will be met by the persons and resources that enable one to see oneself as a child of God, and which bring hope, peace, and joy in the midst of suffering and uncertainty. © 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. 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, Jamesskidneys 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 akidney 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?” End of Life and Sanctity of Life, Commentary 1 Rabbi Edward Reichman, MD Citation PDFAltmetric • • • • Case Mrs. Jones is an 82-year-old nursing home resident with a longstanding history of heart failure, who is now hospitalized in the cardiac ICU for the third time this year. She is a retired teacher, with 4 children and 8 grandchildren. She did not list a religious preference when admitted to the hospital. The attending cardiologist, Dr. Rosenberg, is a heart failure specialist, and is an active member of an Orthodox Jewish congregation. On day 3 of her hospitalization, Mrs. Jones developed a fever, which was subsequently determined to be caused by a MRSA line infection from a venous catheter. On day 4, her renal function began steadily deteriorating, until her serum potassium reached dangerous levels. She has been unconscious for 2 days, and, according to hospital records and her children, she has no advance directives to guide end-of-life care. Dr. Rosenberg requests a family conference with Mrs. Joness children (her husband is deceased) to discuss their mothers prognosis and the appropriate next steps in treatment. Im afraid that your mothers health is steadily deteriorating, Dr. Rosenberg tells Mrs. Joness family. She has a serious infection that has failed to respond to traditional antibiotics. How did she get this infection, doctor? Mrs. Joness daughter Jennifer asks. Thats a good question. Its likely the result of an IV line we placed during her admission, Dr. Rosenberg replies. Your mothers infection is caused by a resistant strain of staphylococcus that is common in intensive care units and hospitals, but we have more aggressive antibiotics we can use. I should also tell you that her kidneys are failing, and well need to begin dialysis to ensure that her electrolytes and fluid status are kept at normal levels. Despite this, I think theres a strong possibility shell pull through. At this point, Mrs. Joness eldest son Franklin interrupts. Look, doctor, he says, My cousin was on dialysis for years, and, until he died, he was really miserable. I dont want my mom to have to go through that at this age. I think enough is enough. Shes been in the hospital 3 times this year alone. I understand your concern, Dr. Rosenberg says, but you should realize that your mother may not require long-term dialysis. Her kidneys may recover, but at this stage, dialysis is the only solution left to correct her electrolyte imbalances. If we dont lower her potassium, shell likely develop a fatal arrhythmia. Franklin looks at the rest of the family, who are shaking their heads. Honestly, I think you shouldnt treat her any further. Even if its not permanent, starting dialysis just isnt a path we want her to start on. And the aggressive antibiotics—I dont see any reason to pour more substances into her already tired body. Its obviously her time to go. Cant you just give her something to make her comfortable? Dr. Rosenberg pauses for a moment and then tells Franklin. We fully intend to keep her comfortable and continue treating her pain. As you know, Im committed to doing whats best for your mother. But in good conscience, I cant stop treating your mother as long as there are reasonable courses of action that I could take to preserve her life. According to the principles that guide my practice of medicine, I cannot withhold life-saving treatment from any patient—especially antibiotic therapy and temporary dialysis, both treatments with uncontroversial efficacy. Commentary 1 One who sustains the life of but one human being is considered as if he has saved an entire world. —Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a. As Dr. Rosenberg invokes Jewish law in his approach to his patient, it behooves us to discuss how Jewish law would address this case. 1) Would Jewish law indeed require dialysis for Mrs. Jones? 2) If the law requires dialysis for Mrs. Jones, can Dr. Rosenberg, according to Jewish law, impose his religious beliefs on others? 3) Does it matter that this patient is not of the same faith as Dr. Rosenberg and does not subscribe to the same religious teachings? While the voice of Orthodox Judaism is not monolithic and, indeed, a plurality of approaches within accepted boundaries is the norm, one can nevertheless distill immutable principles and values deriving from the Bible, Talmud, and legal codes, which inform the discussion and guide the decisions of rabbinic authorities. Debate and nuanced textual interpretation are hallmarks of Jewish legal discourse. While herein we discuss particulars of a fictional case, any actual case of Jewish medical ethics must be presented to the proper rabbinic authority. A number of legal principles serve as the foundation for decisions in the field of Jewish medical ethics. One such principle is the sanctity of life and the obligation to preserve it. The concept of quality of life has different meaning in the Jewish tradition, and life, be it sentient or not, is of infinite value. This does not mean that life need be perpetuated at all times and at all cost. According to many rabbinic authorities, there are limited circumstances where specific treatments may be withheld. A full treatment of this area of law is beyond the scope of this essay, but the discussions of withholding treatment are generally restricted to patients suffering from terminal, untreatable conditions, who are enduring intractable suffering. The specific treatments that can be withheld are debated, but all agree that nutrition, hydration, and oxygen (not necessarily intubation) should be provided to all patients and are not subject to refusal. One is therefore not permitted to withhold food, even if insertion of a feeding tube is required for its delivery, as this is considered basic human sustenance to be provided to all people. Terri Schaivo, for example, according to Jewish law, would not be considered to have a lesser quality of life than this writer. She did not suffer from a terminal, incurable disease, and withholding food would clearly not have been permitted according to orthodox Jewish tradition. Mrs. Joness medical condition is not discussed in great detail, but for our purposes, I will assume that Mrs. Jones has an acute, potentially reversible infection complicated by renal failure, which could theoretically be reversed with antibiotics and temporary dialysis. In such a case, Jewish law would likely require that dialysis be performed, inasmuch as Mrs. Jones would surely die without it. If Mrs. Jones were suffering from end-stage metastatic cancer and developed irreversible renal failure, a strong case could be made according to Jewish law to refrain from dialysis. Having established that according to Jewish law dialysis would be indicated, is Dr. Rosenberg obligated, according to this same law, to impose his beliefs on others? The answer here is a decided no. Even if the patient were of the same faith and subscribed to his religious beliefs, Dr. Rosenberg would not be required to coerce therapy. The reason is clear from another exercise in legal analysis: American law forbids treatment against a patients will, and Dr. Rosenberg could theoretically receive legal, ethical, and professional censure (not to mention the criminal consequences) for violating a patients rights a ... Purchase answer to see full attachment