Applying the Four Principles Case Study - Essay Prowess

Applying the Four Principles Case Study

Applying the Four Principles Case Study

  

Applying the Four Principles: Case Study

Applying the Four Principles Case Study

Part 1:

Medical Indications: Beneficence and Non-maleficence Patient Preferences: Autonomy
  Beneficence is a collection of ideologies that require people to prevent harm, avail the necessary benefits, and creates a balance between benefits and risks (Michelle, 2017). It involves extreme acts of kindness in benefiting others from all adverse incidents. The physicians are expected to use their knowledge in ensuring that they extend welfare to their patients. Beneficence is shown through the kindness of Mike and Joanne, who were willing to offer their kidneys for the transplant, but their tissues were not a match of their child. Non-maleficence advises physicians not to harm their patients. Physicians are expected to abstain from acting with malevolence to patients. Non-maleficence provides slight concrete guidance in patient’s upkeep. In the case study, the physician suggests James be given kidney dialysis immediately and not any other type of treatment that would have caused harm to him.   Autonomy is based off of patients’ preferences which encompass the decisions one makes when they are faced with health problems, especially on the patient’s medication. Autonomy then involves respecting the patient’s opinions regarding medication. Patients have different preferences based on their culture and beliefs on what they consider to be right which have to be met by physicians. In Mike and Joanne’s case, autonomy is shown when decisions making is done by them for their child, James. When the nephrologist mentioned kidney transplant, Mike was upset and decided to take James for a healing sermon in the church. Mike is making decisions for James because he is a minor, hence unable to make the appropriate decision by himself. The nephrologist does not make the final decision about what should be done to James, but only provides suggestions. These actions respect the patient’s autonomy.
Quality of Life: Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Autonomy Contextual Features: Justice and Fairness
  Beneficence works towards improving the quality of patient’s life by removing harm. In beneficence, the patients are relieved from suffering, and hence, they lead healthy lives, and thus, they can enjoy their normal life activities (Jonsen, Siegler, &Winslade, 2010). For example, in James’s case, the physician decided to perform a kidney dialysis to ease James’s suffering. James’s health condition improved for some time as his parents were searching for a compatible kidney donor while antibiotics were still being given to James to relieve pain. This gave his parents a peace of mind. Non-maleficence also improves the quality of patients’ lives, but it has a smaller impact compared to that of beneficence. This happens by stopping the harmful medication to the patients and hence prevents the effect of intensifying their infection. In the case study, the nephrologist advised kidney dialysis for James, as they search for a compatible kidney donor. The nephrologist did not admit unnecessary medication to James apart from regular dialysis hence making James healthy. Autonomy may either improve or lower the living standards of human beings, depending on the patient’s decision. If a patient decides to abandon medication, he may end up experiencing difficulties that lead to misery and suffering. In the case study, Mike was almost deciding to abandon medication and have James’s illness healed under the power of God. In some cases, the issues of faith can lead to a patient’s recovery, but in most cases, it brings suffering to them as in the case of James.   Contextual features affect the decision making among patients since they touch on specific factors such as family dynamics, financial statuses, and religious aspects of the patients. The contextual features also touch on justice and fairness to the patient by the medical practitioners. In healthcare, justice and fairness are often interchanged (Daniels, & Sabin, 2018). Justice refers to acting according to the required laws; some patients attach justice to Gods will, while others hold the belief that truth is inherent. James is only eight years old therefore, Justice is done to him when both his parents and the nephrologist when he is provided the appropriate care. Both parties are familiar with good health as a fundamental human right, and so they do everything in their power to ensure that the kidney problem does not affect James any longer than it already has. Justice is shown by when frequent dialysis is performed on James’s kidneys, as they plan on acquiring a kidney donor. The principle of justice requires the nurses to work according to the laws of the state as well as respect the religious beliefs of a patient. The principle of fairness helps the medical practitioner to treat the patients with dignity. The policy of fair play promotes the virtues of equity, equality, and neutrality in terms of healthcare service delivery as in the case study.

Part 2:

The most pressing principle of medical ethics in Christianity is the patient’s autonomy. According to this principle, the Christian patient has a right to make his own choice on how healthcare intervention should be administered. The principle also asks physicians to respect the opinions of their patients. Some Christians have strong faith that God has a purpose for their sickness (Meilaender, 2013). The belief in that through faith all is possible and so medical administration is not compulsory. For example, Reichman’s case study (Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative, 2019) performed in 2005 about Mrs. Jonas, the principle of autonomy, is shown when Mrs. Jones is given time to recover from her unconsciousness to communicate her medication desires to the physician. In my understanding, Mrs. Jones may have been holding onto her faith for healing, and that is an excellent example of how Christianity affects a patient’s autonomy.

The principle of patient’s autonomy also affects Christians in that most of them take sickness as a test of their faith or a temptation to be overcome. Due to this reason, a person can be admitted in a hospital but refuse any medication from the physicians as a result of a strong belief in God’s healing power. Believing in miracles also affects whether a Christian will accept medication or not. Let us consider a case in the Bible when Jesus resurrected Lazarus. Some firm believers hold onto this that it can happen to them while others do not fear to lose their lives because it is the transition to eternal life. Nonetheless, all these believes and opinions must be respected. The physicians should not criticize their patients due to holding a strong belief in the sanctity of life.

All four principles of medical ethics are significant to Christians. However, they do not take the same position in the Christian religion. The first one is the patient’s autonomy in which the physicians are mandated to respect the opinions of their patients. In this principle, patients have the right to refuse treatment or otherwise allow nature to take its course (Meilaender, 2013). Patients’ autonomy is directly linked with the patient’s faith. In the case study, Mike and Joanne, are willing to forgo treatment for their child, James, and place their faith in God for his healing. The physician will have to respect what they agree to do. Secondly, the principle of medical ethics in beneficence states that physicians should express kindness to their patients and mercy. It implies that medical practitioners and society should act as good Samaritans by coming to the aid of the sick, injured, and dying (Meilaender, 2013). This principle also extends a hand of concern to the elderly patients and requires the community to be comforting to them. In the case study, Mike and Joanne are willing to donate their kidneys to their child, but this did not work since their kidneys were incompatible to that of their child. The principle of beneficence inspires Christians to be merciful and come into the aid of others.

The third-ranked principle of medical ethics, according to Christians, is non-maleficence. Non- maleficence sends a warning to all the people that they should not harm patients. Therefore, the physicians must evaluate this rule and discover the consequences of administering a particular medication to patients. For example, the physicians required to avoid using a respirator to elderly patients as this would lead to more chronic conditions in patients like lung cancer (Meilaender, 2013). In the case study, the physician did not perform a kidney transplant to James since all the potential transplants were from incompatible donors. Lastly, the principle of medical justice is applicable, and it means respecting the rights and dignity of every human being. In Christians, justice encompasses leading peaceful and godly life by respecting others. Physicians must be fair and just to their patients by giving proper medical attention (Michelle, 2017). This principle is evident in the case study since the physician suggested immediate kidney dialysis on James. The physician understands that James is mandated to good medication, and so he is willing to respect this right. In conclusion, all religions are bound to certain values regarding medication, and hence, their opinions must be respected.

References:

Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative. (2019). PHI-413V Topic 3 Overview, Grand Canyon University. Retrieved from https://lms-ugrad.gcu.edu/learningPlatform/user/users.lc?operation=loggedIn&token=GwFALrRDygvuaFgmvAj629DXiWY5JBeb0nUBPs14v%2b6YaQemXgcDQBhSkwgAK0L3i9ThtiVd0MZWx2ez3edmaQ%3d%3d&classId=2239192#/learningPlatform/class/syllabus.lc?operation=getClassOutlineIUView&classId=d7310254-4d96-4d70-bcb9-6ad2f526f297&c=prepareClassOutlineForm&t=coursesMenuOption&tempDate=1560299747978

Daniels, N., & Sabin, J. (2018). Contextual feature in medical ethics. McGraw Hill. Retrieved from: https://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?

Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., &Winslade, W. J. (2010). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education/Medical.

Meilaender, G.. (2013). Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (3rd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Michelle, M.. (2017). The principles of justice and fairness. Beyond Intractability. Retrieved from: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/principles-of-justice.