Select Page

APA format not required for body of assignment but solid academic writing is expected.I need this by 9 pm eastern standard time on Sunday night January 19Please use attached materials as referencesplease be very cautious in writing this paper as my week 3 paper had several places in it that were verbatim from other papers he had seen and told me to be very careful to avoid having academic penalty.
phi_413v_rs_t3t5casestudyhealingandautonomy.docx

week_3_applying_the_four_principals__paper.docx

week_5_benchmark_assignment_directions.docx

week_5_study_materials_links.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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?”
© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
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
Patient Preferences
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Autonomy

With an acute glomerulonephritis, James needed
temporally dialysis to relieve the elevated blood
pressure and fluid buildup.

Allowing James to seek faith healing as per the
parent’s request despite needing urgent temporary
dialysis.

James is brought back to the hospital after his
condition worsens and will require dialysis and a
kidney transplant.

Despite an acute glomerulonephritis diagnosis, the
doctor allowed Mike and Joanne to seek faith healing
services instead of putting James through multiple
rounds of dialysis.

Mike and Joanne returned James to the hospital after
the faith healing services had failed.

The family returned James back to the hospital and
were willing to have him undergo a dialysis and kidney
transplant.

Mike and Joanne offered to donate one of their own
kidneys to James.
Quality of Life
Contextual Features
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy
Justice and Fairness

With acute glomerulonephritis, James needed temporary
dialysis to relieve of elevated blood pressure and fluid
buildup.

Allowing James to seek faith healing as per the parent’s
request despite needing an urgent temporary dialysis.

James’s condition deteriorates and the family returns him
back to the hospital and is forced to place James on
dialysis.

Allowing James’s parent to seek faith healing as they had
requested.

Mike and Joanne thought its more prudent to take James
immediately to a faith healing service instead of putting
James through multiple rounds of dialysis.

Mike and Joanne 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,
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

James now needs a kidney transplant as his condition had
deteriorated.

James’s parents and friends are willing to donate for him
a kidney but lack a compatible donor.
some of their close friends and church members also
offered to donate a kidney to James.

Mike wonders if it is appropriate for Samuel to donate
his kidney to Mike.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how principlism would be applied:
1. 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)
Of the present case, the principle of Quality of Life that is based on the concepts of
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, and Autonomy and is the most pressing here. In medical
ethics, beneficence is a moral obligation to act on the benefits of others. This is ensuring that
the action directed towards others is of benefit to them and ensures that the benefits and risks
for the actions are balanced. From the case presented, James was suffering from acute
glomerulonephritis and needed an urgent dialysis due to the high blood pressure and fluid
buildup. In this case, the medical practitioner had a duty to provide these based on the
principle of beneficence. In medical ethics, nonmaleficence holds that there is an obligation
not to inflict harm on others. This means that the medical team in this case had a duty to
ensure that they do not cause harm to James irrespective of his prevailing condition.
Autonomy, on the other hand, holds that we should respect the decisions of adults who have
decision-making capacity (Jahn, 2011). From a Christianity perspective, medical care
providers are required to ensure that their actions are of benefit to others, do not cause any
harm, and ensure it respects the wishes of the consenting adults. The Christianity worldview
calls for Christians to place the needs of others ahead of their own needs (Jahn, 2011). In this
case the Quality of Life principle was the most pressing as it ensured no harm was done,
beneficial services were offered, and the wishes of the patients were respected.
2. 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)
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
1. Quality of Life (Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy) – the quality of life which
is based on the ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy rank
first in the order of priority. The principle upholds the need to offer beneficial
services, the moral responsibility to do no harm, and the need to uphold the autonomy
of the patient involved. Doing this ensures that no harm is caused to the patient, the
services offered are beneficial, and the respect of the patient is upheld.
2. Patient Preferences (Autonomy) – the second principle in terms of priority is that of
patient preferences which call for one to respect the wishes of the patient (Scott,
2017). This is based on the notion that patients have a right to make decisions relating
to how they are treated and the kind of care they receive.
3. Medical Indications (Beneficence and Nonmaleficence) – the medical indication
principle is the third in order of priority as it calls for caregivers to do no harm while
at the same time offering beneficial services to their patients.
4. Contextual Features (Justice and Fairness) – Justice and Fairness call for the respect
of the patient and others who are involved. In all actions, one should ensure that they
uphold justice and fairness, and that the rights of others are respected in the process
(Scott, 2017).
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
References:
Jahn, W. T. (2011). The 4 basic ethical principles that apply to forensic activities are respect for
autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Journal of Chiropractic
Medicine, 10(3), 225-226. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2011.08.004
Scott, P. A. (2017). Nursing and the Ethical Dimension of Practice. Key Concepts and Issues in
Nursing Ethics, 1-13. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49250-6_1
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
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.
1. 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.
2.
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?
3.
In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the physician assist
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.
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
assistance.
Benchmark Information
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:
BS in Health Sciences 1.2; BS Nursing (RN to BSN ) 5.2
Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.
Week 5 study materials Links
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 “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
Advance Directives
“Advance Directives,” by Hanson and Doukas, from
The
Penn
Center Guide
to Bioethics
(2009).
https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/spp
bioeth
/advance_directives/0?institutionId=5865
Palliative Care
“Palliative Care,” by Weigand, from
The Penn
Center
Guide to Bioethics
(2009).
https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/spp
bioeth
/palliative_care/0?institutionId=5865

Purchase answer to see full
attachment