PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response
ORDER NOW FOR ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS ON PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response
Benchmark – Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis
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 400-500 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? Answer the following in 400 to 500 words: How should a Christian think about health and sickness? How should a Christian feel about getting medical help? As a Christian, what should Mike do? How should he think about trusting God and how he should treat James in light of the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence?
Answer the following in 200-250 words: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the doctor help Mike figure out what James, his family, and other people involved in his care need?
Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.
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. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for Helpance. PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response
This benchmark assignment assesses the following competencies:
BS Nursing (RN to BSN)
5.2: Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.
Rubric
Attempt Start Date: 30-Sep-2019 at 12:00:00 AM
Due Date: 06-Oct-2019 at 11:59:59 PM
Maximum Points: 200.0
Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.
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. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for Helpance.
This benchmark assignment assesses the following competencies:
BS Nursing (RN to BSN)
5.2: Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.
Study material:
-Read “End of Life and Sanctity of Life,” by Reichman, from American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, formerly Virtual Mentor (2005).
URL: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2005/05/ccas2-0505.html
-Read Chapters 13-15 in Called to Care: A Christian Worldview for Nursing.
URL: http://gcumedia.com/digital-resources/intervarsity-press/2006/called-to-care_a-christian-worldview-for-nursing_ebook_2e.php
-Read “Aligning Ethics With Medical Decision-Making: The Quest for Informed Patient Choice,” by Moulton and King, from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (2010).
URL: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48827861&site=ehost-live&scope=site
-Read “Doing a Culturally Sensitive Spiritual Assessment: Recognizing Spiritual Themes and Using the HOPE Questions,” by Anandarajah, from AMA Journal of Ethics (2005).
URL: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/doing-culturally-sensitive-spiritual-assessment-recognizing-spiritual-themes-and-using-hope/2005-05
-Read the “Medical Record – Spiritual Assessment” located on The Joint Commission website (2018).
URL: https://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/jcfaqdetails.aspx?StandardsFaqId=1492&ProgramId=46
-Read “Making the Case for Ethical Decision-Making Models,” by Cooper, from Nurse Prescribing (2012).
URL: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=2011892382&site=ehost-live&scope=site
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.
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?”
Applying the Four Principles: Case Study Sample Student Paper
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information using bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.
Medical Indications
Beneficence and Non-maleficence
Patient Preferences
Autonomy
James had acute glomerulonephritis, a condition that is essentially kidney failure. Clinically, the disease, which resulted from a strep throat infection, can recover on its own, but medications can expedite the healing process. James’ condition had increased tissue fluid and blood pressure, which could only be reduced temporarily by dialysis.
Mike and Joanne believed at first that placing their son in faith would heal him, but when it did not, they considered dialysis to be the better option as recommended by the physician. On their second consideration, they believed that dialysis was a beneficent course of action even before the transplant, which was later supported by the nephrologist.
Regarding nonmaleficence, Lawrence (2007 PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response) states that the physician had a moral duty to promote good health for James. On the first, the physician recommended immediate dialysis though the parents did not buy the idea. They though dialysis would be dangerous, and instead, they opted for a faith healing service which didn’t work in the short run. Mike and Joanne were obliged to offer the best for their children, and in weighing between faith and clinical interventions, they meant everything for the good of their son and restore to health. Their actions are ethically justified though they acted when it was late for effective treatment.
In this case, the little boy who is only eight years is not in any capacity to make decisions for himself regarding his treatment. Everything depends on the decisions made by his parents; Mike and Joanne. Because of the age factor, Ediger (2015 PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response) argues that it is considered ethical and quite acceptable for parents to take charge and make all the decisions that pertain to their children. The physician who attended to James the first respected the parents’ autonomy by allowing Mike and His wife Joanne to forego kidney dialysis and put their faith in God for the healing of the little boy. Similarly, when James’s worsened began worsening, the nephrologist recommended kidney transplant, and the only compatible donor was determined to be Samuel, the brother to James. Even on this note, the nephrologist respected the family’s autonomy by leaving the choice at their disposal. They were left to decide whether to have their son Samuel lose a kidney or wait for a divine miracle.
Quality of Life
Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Autonomy
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness
In seeking to restore the desired quality of life for their son, Mike and Joanne first sought medical Helpance to address complications which were associated with a strep throat infection. When the situation worsened to kidney failure, the family kept on finding medical as well as spiritual support to treat their son. The physician first recommended daily rounds of dialysis, and days later, a nephrologist recommended a kidney transplant. All these attempts and actions, combined, sought to restore the standard quality of life for the James
The family should have settled for immediate kidney dialysis when the physician recommended. The faith healing service could still be applied along with the clinical intervention. After all, they ended up resolving for dialysis even after being in the faith-healing service for a couple of weeks.
The idea of justice usually emerges to the forefront concerning an equal and fair allocation of medical resources, including products and services such as health insurance and donations (Lawrence, 2007). In the case at hand, this principle plays a significant role even though it has not presented so widely. If anything, the physician is fair and just enough to the family, as demonstrated in several ways. First, the physician recommended dialysis for James, and even though the family objected and opted for divine intervention, he/she still did it when the patient was brought back two days later. The family was fair as well in handling their kid in the sense that when their faith for healing seemed to fail, they brought the boy back for dialysis. The facility, as well as the family, attached the real value and the perceived quality to the life of James until a number of individuals were proposed to donate their kidney to James. When all the options were incompatible, the family was still buying the idea of having Samuel to donate one kidney to his brother, though it was such a big dilemma for them. The family does not wish to have their son in dialysis for long enough since his quality of life will remain in jeopardy.
Part 2: Assessment
Answer each of the following questions about how principlism would be applied:
In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, which of the four principles is most pressing in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
In the healing and autonomy case of James’ illness, the most significant of the four principles of principalism is that of beneficence. James was suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, which, in essence, is kidney failure. The condition evolved from a strep throat infection, and clinically, it can naturally improve, but treatment can be speeded up using antibiotics. The case of James had raised the blood pressure and tissue fluid, which could only be relieved by temporary dialysis.
With these clinical presentations, the family, as well as the healthcare facility, were ethically obliged to hold on to the group of principles which require them to prevent harm, provide appropriate benefits, and strike the right balance between benefits, risks, and costs (McCartney, 2009 PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response).
The family was fully informed about the condition of James, but they slightly failed in their course of action to benefit their son. Evading the associated cost and opting for faith healing service was risky, and after all, they came back for dialysis. When it was first recommended, they should have prepared their son for dialysis, and in this course, they could still seek the intervention of the faith healing service which could not clash the clinical approach in any way.
The case has escalated too high until now the family is facing the most significant dilemma of whether Samuel can donate the kidney to the brother or wait for divine help again.
In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian rank the priority of the four principles? Explain why. (45 points)
The case involves a Christian family with a young boy whose decisions are still at the disposal of the parents. In order of the priority, therefore, the most important of the four principles is that of beneficence, followed closely by that of nonmaleficence. When an issue is already at hand, Orr, (2015). Recommend the people involved to engage those interventions that would prevent more harm while at the same time benefiting the patient, factoring in cost and risks. Mike and Joanne who enjoyed the privilege of autonomy for their son needed to consider that in delaying to accept clinical intervention, they were subjecting the kid to more, thus risking his life without incurring any much costs. They needed to take the physician’s idea first and then embark on faith to prevent any more harm to James. The third priority is respect for autonomy. The physician was doing it fairly and well to allow the family to make decisions on the course of treatment for their son because they were the ones to pay for it, and any pressure whatsoever would be in their hands. Justice was not an issue in this case because it was fully respected. Dialysis was finally done as required, and the family was on the verge of seeking a kidney transplant for James.
References:
Ediger, M. J. (2015). Teaching Clinical Ethics Using the Four Topic Method. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 20(6), 10-13.
Lawrence, D. J. (2007). The four principles of biomedical ethics: a foundation for current bioethical debate. Journal of Chiropractic Humanities, 14, 34-40.
McCartney, J. J. (2009). HOSPITAL ETHICS COMMITTEES. The Penn Center Guide to Bioethics, 137.
Orr, R. D. (2015). Incorporating spirituality into patient care. AMA journal of ethics, 17(5), 409-415.
PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response Rubric
