Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100!
Healing and Autonomy Case Study – PHI 413V Assignment
Healing and Autonomy Case Study – PHI 413V Assignment
Case Study Healing and Autonomy
Write a 1,200-1,500 word analysis of “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy.” In light of the readings, be sure to address the following questions:
Under the Christian narrative and Christian vision, what sorts of issues are most pressing in this case study?
Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James?
According to the Christian narrative and the discussion of the issues of treatment refusal, patient autonomy, and organ donation in the topic readings, how might one analyze this case?
According to the topic readings and lecture, how ought the Christian think about sickness and health? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James?
Prepare this Case Study Healing and Autonomy assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This Case Study Healing and Autonomy 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 Case Study Healing and Autonomy assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
PHI 413V Week 5 Assignment
Religious View of Euthanasia
The practice of health care providers at all levels brings you into contact with people from a variety of faiths. This calls for knowledge and acceptance of a diversity of faith expressions.
The purpose of this paper is to complete a comparative ethical analysis of George’s situation and decision from the perspective of two worldviews or religions: Christianity and a second religion of your choosing. For the second faith, choose a faith that is unfamiliar to you. Examples of faiths to choose from include Sikh, Baha’i, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.
In your comparative analysis, address all of the worldview questions in detail for Christianity and your selected faith. Refer to Chapter 2 of Called to Care for the list of questions. Once you have outlined the worldview of each religion, begin your ethical analysis from each perspective.
In a minimum of 1,500-2,000 words, provide an ethical analysis based upon the different belief systems, reinforcing major themes with insights gained from your research, and answering the following questions based on the research:
How would each religion interpret the nature of George’s malady and suffering? Is there a “why” to his disease and suffering? (i.e., is there a reason for why George is ill, beyond the reality of physical malady?)
In George’s analysis of his own life, how would each religion think about the value of his life as a person, and value of his life with ALS?
What sorts of values and considerations would each religion focus on in deliberating about whether or not George should opt for euthanasia?
Given the above, what options would be morally justified under each religion for George and why?
Finally, present and defend your own view.
Support your position by referencing at least three academic resources (preferably from the GCU Library) in addition to the course readings, lectures, the Bible, and the textbooks for each religion. Each religion must have a primary source included. A total of six references are required according to the specifications listed above. Incorporate the research into your writing in an appropriate, scholarly manner.
Prepare this Religious View of Euthanasia assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is required.
This Religious View of Euthanasia 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 Religious View of Euthanasia assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Topic 3 Discussion 1
Principalism, especially in the context of bioethics in the United States, has often been critiqued for raising the principle of autonomy to the highest place, such that it trumps all other principles or values. How would you rank the importance of each of the four principles? How do you believe they would be ordered in the context of the Christian biblical narrative? Refer to the lecture and topic readings in your response.
Topic 3 Discussion 2
What do the four parts of the Christian Biblical Narrative (i.e., creation, fall, redemption, and restoration) say about the nature of God and of reality in relation to the reality of sickness and disease? From where would one find comfort and hope in the light of illness according to this narrative? Explain in detail each part of the narrative above and analyze the implications.
Topic 5 Discussion 1
What is your definition of “spiritual care?” How does it differ or accord with the description given in the topic readings? Explain.
Topic 5 Discussion 2
When it comes to facilitating spiritual care for patients with worldviews different from your own, what are your strengths and weaknesses? If you were the patient, who would have the final say in terms of ethical decision-making and intervention in the event of a difficult situation?
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, James’s 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?”
Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Part 1: Chart (60 points) – Healing and Autonomy Case Study – PHI 413V Assignment
|Medical IndicationsBeneficence and Nonmaleficence||Patient PreferencesAutonomy|
|·James is in end stage kidney failure and needs a kidney donor to save his life. The problem started from an acute illness that became chronic and eventually critical from lack of hemodialysis during the time James’s parents refused treatment for him.
·The illness started from a strep throat infection that led to acute glomerulonephritis complicated by hypertension and fluid retention requiring immediate dialysis. The delay on James receiving the dialysis led to kidney failure requiring him to need a transplant. His prognosis is fatal if he does not find a donor kidney.
·The only treatment option is for James to have dialysis while he waits for a donor kidney.
·James’s twin brother is a match and would be a compatible donor if James’s parents give consent instead of relying on their Christian faith in god to heal James.
|·The physician was clear with James parents of the necessity of the dialysis treatments to be started immediately but I am not sure if he explained thoroughly enough the risks and seriousness of delaying treatment even for a few days.·
The physician respected the principle of autonomy when he allowed James’s parents to take him to a faith healer instead of following his medical recommendations.
·The parents used the principle of autonomy and used their faith instead of medicine to treat their son.
·As James is a minor and cannot make his own medical decisions, his parents have the responsibility to do what is best to care for him and also have the right to respect their faith.
Healing and Autonomy Case Study Essay Assignment – PHI 413V
|Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy||Contextual Features Justice and Fairness|
|·James has a greatly reduced quality of life since the delay of treatment has led to him needing permanent dialysis and a kidney transplant.
·James’s brother Samuel could donate one of his kidneys if the parents’ consent. While this could save his brother’s life it could cause him medical issues later in life and give him a reduced quality of life.
·Samuel is also a minor and it is up to his parents to decide if he will be giving James one of his kidneys.
·The whole family will suffer greatly if James does not receive the transplant and dies. Mike, the father, is already struggling with the fact that his faith was not strong enough to save his son and is unsure if he just didn’t pray hard enough or believe strongly enough in god. Healing and Autonomy Case Study Essay Assignment – PHI 413V.
|·James has no voice in his medical decisions because of his age. His parents have full medical authority. In my opinion, no justice was gained by his parents denying him the necessary medical treatments to take him to a faith healer instead.
·Samuel is in the same situation as his brother and cannot make any medical decisions for himself. I do not think it just or fair if he has to grow up without his twin knowing that he could have saved James’s life.
·The parents do have autonomy in making decisions based on the recommendations of the doctors or praying for a miracle and risking James’s life in the process. They are conflicted because they want to use beneficence and do what is best for both of their children while still relying on their faith in god to heal but are unsure what is the right decision to make.
·The physicians want to heal James medically (Nonmaleficence) but know that they have to respect the autonomy of the parents.
Part 2: Evaluation
|Based on this case study, I feel that the most pressing principle should be beneficence as James’s parents focus should be on what the doctors are advising them on the seriousness of his medical condition and the risks of foregoing or delaying treatment. The parents however seem to be more focused on the principle of autonomy and their choice to ignore the doctors and rely on their faith instead. Obviously, Mike and Joanne love their children and are not willfully causing them harm, but their delay of treatment caused James’s condition to become critical and could now harm Samuel also if he has to undergo surgery and live the rest of his life with one kidney which could be at risk of failing at some point in his life. I feel that while Mike and Joanne want to be beneficient, their decisions ultimately caused malificience and a lack of justice to both boys.|
|I feel that in based on the Christian worldview the most important principle is beneficence.
“For Christians, beneficence is a basic duty, but Christian ethics goes beyond the moral rule of beneficence which is required of everyone at all times. Because it comes within the command to “love your neighbour as yourself’ (Matt. 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:2528), beneficence, wherever possible, includes benevolence (or goodwill). Jesus taught as a characteristic feature of the values of the kingdom of God not only doing what is required by law but doing more out of love: going also “the second mile” (Matt. 5:41).” (World Council of Churches, 1970, para. 39).
Closely following beneficence would be nonmaleficence as they go hand in hand, to do good is to do no harm. The principles of justice and autonomy are also very important and would follow beneficence and nonmaleficence.
World Council of Churches. (1970). Chapter four: Ethical perspectives.
Lawrence, D. (2007). The Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics: A Foundation for Current
Bioethical Debate. Journal of Chiropractic Humanities. Retrieved from
https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105887311&site=ehost-live&scope=site Healing and Autonomy Case Study Essay Assignment – PHI 413V