Patient’s Spiritual Needs Essay
PHI413V GCU Healing and Autonomy Case Study
In addition to the topic study materials, use the chart you completed and questions you answered in the Topic 3 about “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” as the basis for your responses in this assignment.
Answer the following questions about a patient’s spiritual needs in light of the Christian worldview.
In 200-250 words, respond to the following: Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James, or would that mean a disrespect of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale.
In 400-450 words, respond to the following: How ought the Christian think about sickness and health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is truly honoring the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in James’s care?
In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the physician Help Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others involved in his care?
Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Rubric:
1. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed from both perspectives with a deep understanding of the complexity of the principle of autonomy. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. 20%
2. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed with deep understanding of the complexity of the Christian perspective, as well as with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. 20% Patient’s Spiritual Needs Essay
3. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician Help the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed with a deep understanding of the connection between a spiritual needs assessment and providing appropriate interventions. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. 30%
4. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. 7%
5. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 8%
6. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 5%
7. All format elements are correct. 5%
8. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. 5%
There are three different parts to this paper:
· Part one deals with Mike’s decision-making capabilities.
· Part two deals with how to think issues related to sickness and health.
· Part three deals with a spiritual assessment.
Read “Doing a Culturally Sensitive Spiritual Assessment: Recognizing Spiritual Themes and Using the HOPE Questions,” by Anandarajah, from AMA Journal of Ethics(2005).
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/doing-culturally-sensitive-spiritual-assessment-recognizing-spiritual-themes-and-using-hope/2005-05
Read “End of Life and Sanctity of Life,” by Reichman, from American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, formerly Virtual Mentor (2005).
http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2005/05/ccas2-0505.html
Case Study: Healing and Autonomy
Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born eight 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’ 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 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’ 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’ 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? “This time around, it is a matter of life and death, what could require greater faith than that?” Mike reasons. Patient’s Spiritual Needs Essay
Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.
Medical Indications
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Patient Preferences
Autonomy
Here, medical indicators refer to a diagnosis, prognosis, suggested tests and treatments, as well as anticipated treatment results. It is advisable to begin by outlining the medical facts of the issue for all clinical settings (Beauchamp, & Childress, 2019). This could include the type of treatment, the planned actions, and the anticipated course in the context of patient treatment and care.
The principles of beneficence and non-maleficence are critical for patient outcomes. Any decision made regarding treatment, such as whether and when to operate, should weigh clinical and ethical benefits and risks.
Patients’ preferences are relevant from both a medical and ethical standpoint. If a patient can make their own decision, his/her preferences must be taken into account to be used for guiding their medical care. If a patient does not have decision-making capacity, a patient’s presumed wishes or best interests, is conveyed by a surrogate who serves as the principal guide.
Determining decision-making capacity poses a unique challenge in treatment of patients and must be done with care. A patient should be included in the decision-making process as soon as he or she can appropriately and fully take part, as determined by the appropriate clinical team
Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness
The quality of life is hurt by illnesses and injuries (QOL). Since the goal of a principle is to maintain, restore, and improve QOL, it is important to talk about how treatment might affect QOL. During this conversation, we need to think about the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and respect for autonomy. QOL is always a matter of opinion. So, it’s hard to figure out what QOL is and when it will be affected negatively in a given case.
Contextual factors that can affect decision making include things like how the patient’s family works, how much money they have, or what their religion or culture is, as well as the possible legal consequences of care and the personal biases of anyone involved in caring for the patient. Even though these things aren’t always clear, they can affect patient care and must be taken into account. Patient’s Spiritual Needs Essay
Part 2: Assessment
Answer each of the following questions about how you would use the four principles and four boxes method:
Answer this question in 200-250 words: From a Christian point of view, how would each of these principles be defined and weighed in this case? Tell me why. (45 points)
Christianity says that we should help other people. It asks people to think about how other people feel. Jesus used many different ways in his teachings to try to get people to think differently about their lives and actions. James’s parents should think about how what they do affects his life. They need to put themselves in James’s shoes and do what is right for him (Garcia, 2020). For instance, taking James to a healing church when he needed dialysis the most was a bad idea and rude. James was put on permanent dialysis because of this. This could have been avoided if James’s parents had gone through with the first dialysis.
James’s parents didn’t give him enough freedom because they didn’t ask him what he thought about going to church or going to the hospital right away for dialysis.
In terms of doing good and not doing harm, James’s parents did not do him any good when they took him to a healing service instead of dialysis right away.
In the same way, James’s parents did not treat him fairly when they ignored the doctors’ advice to put him on a dialysis machine right away.
Answer this question in 200-250 words: From a Christian point of view, how could each of the four principles be balanced in this case? Tell me why. (45 points)
Respecting the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence may, in some situations, mean not respecting a person’s right to decide for themselves or not taking into account what they think about a certain treatment. For example, it may be necessary to give an unpleasant treatment in order to stop a future, more serious health problem from happening. The treatment might be unpleasant, uncomfortable, or even painful, but the patient might be better off getting it than if they didn’t.
Beneficence is a very important part of health care because it makes sure that patients get good care and are safe (Grinnell, 2020). The people who work in health care have a responsibility to care for their patients, their coworkers, and society as a whole.
Nonmaleficence means that a doctor has to do no harm to the patient. This simple principle backs up several moral rules: don’t kill, don’t cause pain or suffering, don’t disable, don’t offend, and don’t take away the good things in life from other people.
Fairness is based on equality, respect, justice, and taking care of the world we all live in, both between people and in how they treat other living things. Patient’s Spiritual Needs Essay
Autonomy means that each person has the right to self-determination, which means that no one else can tell them how to live their lives.
Patient’s Spiritual Needs Essay References:
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics: marking its fortieth anniversary.
Garcia, J. L. (2020, July). Virtues and principles in biomedical ethics. In The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine (Vol. 45, No. 4-5, pp. 471-503). US: Oxford University Press. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32726807/
Grinnell, F. (2020). Biomedical ethics 2.0: redefining the meaning of disease, patient and treatment. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 21(8), 417-418.
