Fluent Essays

Rubic_Print_Format Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points PHI-413V PHI-413V-O503 Benchmark - Patients Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis 200.0 Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00\%) Less Than Satisfactory (65.00\%) Satisfactory (75.00\%) Good (85.00\%) Excellent (100.00\%) Comments Points Earned Content 90.0\% Decision-Making and Principle of Autonomy 30.0\% 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 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 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 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 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. Decision-Making, Christian Perspective, and the Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence 30.0\% 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 mHealing and Autonomy Healing and Autonomy 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 using bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible. Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Patient Preferences Autonomy · Immediate treatment of acute glomerulonephritis · Fluid buildup due to blood pressure hence need for immediate dialysis · Loss of mobility due to stroke · Infection tends to improve on their own or with an antibiotic · Forego the dialysis and place their faith in God · Healed through prayers Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy Contextual Features Justice and Fairness Autonomy · James parents had the right to choose what was right for their child · Their choice, though within their right of taking James for spiritual healing, contraindicated with medical professionalism, the doctor used medical ethics to allow them their independent decision · James parents are allowed to choose if their son should be allowed to donate the kidney to his twin brother Beneficence · Medical doctors only advised on the possible donor since it would have brought more harm to the parents · The doctor carried out regular analysis to stabilize James and reduce pain Nonmaleficence · The doctor avoided causing harm to the patient by stabilizing him · He advised, though painful, that to stop the harm, they should consider having Samuel as the donor · The patient should be told the truth even when it hurts, .i.e. the doctor advised on the best match even when it was hurting; therefore, justice and fairness to the patient · Allowing the parents to make their independent decision is fairness · Stabilizing the patient is justice Running head: HEALING AND AUTONOMY 1 HEALING AND AUTONOMY 5 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) Beneficence and Non-maleficence. Beneficence involves balancing the benefits of treatment against the cost and risks involved, whereas non-maleficence refers to avoiding the causality to experience more harm (Kotak & Ahuja, 2020). As many treatments involve some degree of harm, non-maleficence implies that the harm should not be disproportionate to the treatments benefit. According to the Christian worldview, God is the giver of life and can harvest or take ones life if your time has reached. James parents believed in God rather than the doctors; hence placed their faith in God and prayed for their sons recovery and good health. In many cases where the patient or the patients parenCase 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?”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. 1. 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. 2. 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? 3. 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.