Healing and Autonomy Case Paper 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?

2 Essay Assignment based on the Case Study: Healing and Autonomy Autonomy is one of the primary principles that govern decision-making about an individual’s health. While there are establishments that involve religion and spiritual practices with health-related benefits, conflicts often arise where individuals choose spiritual healing options instead of medical approaches to healing. This case study examines the decisions made by Mike and Joanne on behalf of their son James who is eight years old. The implications of delayed medical intervention due to Mike’s prioritization of spiritual interventions culminated in the further deterioration of James’ health. This essay addresses some questions about the case study, including the rational action of the physician, Christian thoughts on sickness, health and medical interventions, suggested actions for Mike, and the significance of spiritual needs assessment in guiding Mike to determine appropriate interventions for James, his family, and others involved in James’ care. Part One What Action the Physician Should Take in This Case The physician should not allow Mike to continue to make irrational and harmful decisions that contribute to the deterioration of James’ health. Instead, the physician should advise Mike of his irrational and harmful decisions. The physician should seek to enhance James' parents' understanding of the necessity of the healthcare interventions required for their son. The competing moral ideologies of beneficence and nonmaleficence allow the physician to override Mike's autonomy and to encourage the parents to find a new kidney for James to prevent further harm to him (Motloba & Makwakwa, 2018). James’ nephrologist should take further actions to save the life of James by insisting that they find an alternative donor within the estimated period of one year. That is if they are unwilling for their other son and James’ identical twin brother, Samuel, who is a perfect donor match, to donate one kidney for James. According to Manda-Taylor, Masiye, and Mfutso-Bengo (2018), autonomy

Order this paper