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.PHI-413V Wk 3 Assignment- Case Study
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?”
The “Health and Autonomy” Case Study of James and Samuel: Applying the Four Bioethical Principles in an Environment Ruled by the Christian Worldview
Part 1: Chart
| Medical Indications
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence |
Patient Preferences
Autonomy |
| · Of the four bioethical principles, beneficence has the meaning of giving interventions to the patient that will only bring benefit or good to the patient. It is reinforced by nonmaleficence (primum non nocere), which means avoiding causing intentional harm to the patient by either omission or commission (Chonko, 2012; Page, 2012).
· In the case of James who needed immediate dialysis, it is the physician who demonstrated beneficence by ordering that James be given what they needed and would benefit them immensely – dialysis. · The parents of James and Samuel (Mike and Joanne) as well as their friends and church members also demonstrated beneficence by agreeing to donate one of their kidneys to James. · Beneficence was also apparent in the nephrologist’s actions. He came up with the idea that if nobody matched with James, his twin brother could be the next most possible donor. · The parents of the twin brothers exercise non maleficence when they voice their reservations about Samuel losing one of his kidneys for his brother. What if the remaining kidney for Samuel fails too? It has to be acknowledged, however, that donating a kidney would actually be beneficence on the part of James. Order this paper |