Ethics is an inherent part of medicine. As such, it is fundamental for healthcare workers to apply medical ethics while carrying out their duties. An in-depth understanding of the four principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice provides a foundation for efficient and respectful care of patients in different settings. Regarding the Healing and Autonomy case, however, a dilemma exists as the parents choose to believe in a miracle for their son, James’ healing, instead of heeding their doctor’s advice. In the case study, we analyze this conundrum and how the physician applied the four principles. Further, the paper explores the weight and specifications of each principle from a Christian worldview and how Mike and Joanne could infuse their spiritual beliefs and science for their son, James.
| Medical Indications
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence The beneficence principle states that physicians should only engage in activities that benefit patients, while nonmaleficence asserts that health practitioners should not hurt anyone in their practice (APA, 2020). In James’ case, the physician suggested immediate dialysis due to his elevated blood pressure, which would stabilize his deteriorating condition. Further, the physician proposed a kidney transplant for James, suggesting an ideal match for him and his twin brother Samuel since the volunteer church members were mismatched. |
Patient Preferences
Autonomy The autonomy principle avers that patients have the right and freedom to make their own choices regarding their care (APA, 2020). In the Healing and Autonomy case, with James being a minor, his parents decided on treatment. In this case, the physician did not interrupt when the parents decided to forego treatment and seek divine healing. Similarly, when James deteriorated, was taken back to the hospital, and the physician suggested that his brother Samuel would be an ideal match, he did not persuade them either while they debated whether to heed the doctor’s advice or wait for God to perform a miracle. |
| Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy To improve the quality of James’ life, the doctor proposed e undergoes a kidney transplant within the year even though he is currently stable. Despite Mike and Joanne and the church members not being a match, the physician advised them to consider a transplant from his brother Samuel who was his ideal match. However, at no point did the doctor pressure them to make any decision, and neither condescended to the parent’s approach to believing in God for healing, despite his belief that science was the best option for James’ wellbeing. |
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness In the case study, this principle applies because the sick boy was provided the option of using advanced technology to improve his quality of life (APA, 2020). The physician proposed that James undergo daily dialysis rounds to stabilize his condition. |
The principle of nonmaleficence has the most weight as it advocates that no harm should be caused. In the case study, the physician is obligated to provide James’ parents with treatment options that would cause him less harm which was proposing a transplant that would improve his deteriorating health. The principle of beneficence comes in a close second as it advocates for good intentions, in this case, the improvement of James’ health (Veatch, 2020, p. 546). Thus, Mike and Joanne are supposed to embrace a treatment option that provides their son with the most benefit, and by failing to adhere to the treatment protocol, their behaviour denies their son a chance to get better. His health deteriorates, and he is faced with choosing his twin brother Samuel as his kidney donor, which could significantly affect Samuel’s well-being. This decision highlights the weight of the third principle of justice and fairness that advocates that patients should benefit from technological advancements. In this case, undergoing a transplant would significantly improve James’ well-being.
Finally, the principle of autonomy carries less weight. Patients have the freedom to choose the course of treatment. However, it poses a big challenge, particularly for patients who make decisions based on faith instead of facts. In Healing and Autonomy case, James’ parents choosing to believe in miracles for their son’s healing has unfortunately led to the deterioration of his health (Veatch, 2020, p. 551). As such,
Order this paper