Healing and Autonomy Paper

Healing and Autonomy Paper

 1.     PART A: CHART

Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence	Patient Preferences Autonomy
Mike and Joanne decided to go for spiritual healing first rather than medical cure, thus delaying therapeutic interventions for their son James and as a result, his condition deteriorated. They had good intentions of seeing their son getting healed. They returned to the physician when spiritual healing failed, and the situation worsened	Patients ought to make their own decisions regarding health after receiving extensive information from the physician on the available interventions and their repercussions (Pope, Hough, & Chase, 2016). James was a child; hence, decisions were got made by his parents. Mike refused dialysis. The physician respected whatever decisions made the patient’s parents.
Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy	Contextual Features Justice and Fairness
The health state of an individual determines the quality of life. After dialysis interventions, the condition of James improved. When James needed a kidney transplant, Mike and Joanne readily offered to donate, but they were not compatible. A brother to James became the suitable donor, but Mike again decided to give spiritual healing a chance.	Contextual features have a say in medical decision making (Savage, 2017). Mike and Joanne considered their faith in spiritual healing to make medical decisions. When kidney transplant was required, they declined to allow their other son to donate despite being the only one whose tissue matched. They were willing to give and even let their close friends and church members provide but not their other son

 

 

PART 2: EVALUATION

1. Pressing principle

In this case, beneficence is the principle that weights according to the Christian worldview, (SSorajjakool, Carr, Nam, Sorajjakool, & Bursey, 2017).  Mike and Joanne want their son to get healed, but they have more faith in spiritual healing than medical healing having got moved by a sermon in church and witnessing their close getting healed of stroke in church. They responded to all the nephrologist’s private appointments. When the faith healing service did not work, Mike agreed to go back to the hospital to put their son on dialysis. James needed a kidney transplant they were quick to donate, but their tissues did not match. They also allowed close friends and family members to give, but their other son got identified as the only suitable donor. Mike became reluctant to make a decision whether to have their son Samuel lose a kidney. He reasoned that perhaps that was the real testing, and God had given them another chance; hence, he gave faith a chance. The have a responsibility of explaining to clients extensively to their medical conditions and help them make a decision that should equally be respected, (Savage, 2017). The consequences of each decision must be explained for patients to get prepared.

2. Priority of the four principles.

Patients make decisions on their health with the help of a healthcare provider. A good Christian will rank the principle of beneficence first, then non-maleficence, followed by justice and fairness and autonomy will come the last. Beneficence determines the course healing will take. Before deciding on the type of interventions to be made, one must have the intentions of getting well first. Acting with having good interests in mind will ensure the patient will not get exposed to any harm, and this relates to the principle of non-maleficence. Christian should ensure equality whenever significant decisions are to get made, and the decision made should not overlook the interests of another person, and this reflects on the principle of justice and fairness. Healthcare providers should allow independent decision making by the clients, and the decisions should be respected (Taylor, 2018). Their parents should help children who have not attained the minimum age to sign consent upon receiving enough information from the physician on the patient condition.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Pope, B., Hough, M. C., & Chase, S. (2016). Ethics in community nursing. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 12(2), 3.

Savage, T. A. (2017). Ethical issues in school nursing. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 22(3)..

SSorajjakool, S., Carr, M. F., Nam, J. J., Sorajjakool, S., & Bursey, E. (2017). World religions for healthcare professionals. Routledge.

Taylor, J. S. (2018, September). Introduction: Autonomy in Healthcare. In HEC Forum (Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 187-189). Springer Netherlands.