PHI 413v Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Assignment

PHI 413v Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Assignment

PHI 413v Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Assignment

            Four principles of bioethics are essential in improving the healthcare of patients. Medical professionals must adhere to these regulations and principles to achieve the most appropriate ethical decisions. All the principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice & fairness) are critical when evaluating case studies, especially when medical professionals experience ethical dilemmas. The current case study addresses the ethical issues associated with religion, especially the Christian faith. This report analyzes the main concepts that require the principles to help the patient and his family. The four attributes include patient preferences, medical indications, quality of life, and contextual features.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE ON;PHI 413v Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Assignment

Part 1: Chart (60 points)

Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence	Patient Preferences Struggling to meet your deadline ? Get assistance on PHI 413v Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Assignment done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW! Meet My Deadline Autonomy
Beneficence: ·         Beneficence is a principle that deals with delivering medical services while considering the well-being of patients. ·         The medical professionals undertook kidney dialysis for the patient. He urgently required this medical procedure. Delays to dialysis made his condition worse. Thus, conducting dialysis was beneficial in the end. Non-maleficence: ·         Non-maleficence represents the role of doctors in avoiding harm to patients (John & Wu, 2022). ·         Doctors must make decisions that would prevent harm by either stopping a poisonous medication or giving medication that would stop the patient from hurting. ·         Doctors suggested immediate dialysis of the patient. However, the patient’s parents refused. Later, the doctors forced the parents to undergo dialysis since the patient’s situation had deteriorated. The medical professionals overlooked the parents’ ideologies about healing to help patients who struggled with kidney problems. The decision worked for the child’s benefit. Another concern that would require non-maleficence is creating a situation that would allow the parents to accept kidney transplants, which would benefit the patient.	Autonomy ·         Autonomy mainly involves respecting the patient’s preferences during decision-making (Ubel, Scherr, & Fagerlin, 2018). ·         Patients’ preferences are essential in medical decision-making. Under all circumstances, doctors should respect patients’ preferences unless it involves saving a life. The patient’s parents refused treatment due to their religious preferences. They believed the prayer and healing service would benefit the patient. They rejected the dialysis and were concerned that Samuel would donate a kidney to James.
Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy	Contextual Features Justice and Fairness
Beneficence ·         Beneficence in this case appreciates the quality of life given to the patient ·         The main focus should be helping the patient overcome his kidney problems by encouraging parents to consider the options that would improve his condition. Nonmaleficence ·         The medical professional forces the patient’s parents to use dialysis since his condition has deteriorated. Autonomy ·         Autonomy outlines the need to respect patients’ preferences that would improve the quality of their lives. ·         In this case, the parents discuss how James desperately needs a kidney transplant.	Justice and Fairness ·         Justice and fairness represent patients’ need to receive equitable services from health professionals. ·         Fairness and justice mean that one patient has not received medical services at the expense of another. ·         In the case above, Sam must reevaluate whether to give James his kidney or not.

Part 2: Evaluation

Answer each of the following questions about how the four principles and four boxes approach would be applied:

1. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how would each of the principles be specified and weighted in this case? Explain why. (45 points)

Based on the Christian worldview, the most significant segment or principle a patient would consider is patient preferences, especially autonomy. Autonomy ranks the highest since patients have the right to accept or reject a therapeutic solution. Specifically, autonomy ranks at 9.5 out of 10.   The second issue is contextual features which rank at 9.0 out of 10. Justice and fairness are the hallmarks of Christianity. Before making any health decision, Christians ask whether they would receive fair services. They need assurance that the professionals would not be biased against them when receiving their health services.   The next concept in rank is quality of life, especially the relationship that non-maleficence, beneficence, and autonomy have. I would consider them at 9.0 out of 10. Avant and Swetz (2020) argue that Christians use mercy, compassion, kindness, and charity to describe beneficence. Non-maleficence will consider avoiding harm to the patient, while beneficence offers services that would improve their health conditions.   The fourth concept is medical indications, although it ranks almost similar to the quality of life (9.0 out of 10). In medical conditions, beneficence is essential for giving patients the appropriate care while doctors avoid harming them. This concept relates with quality of life since patients must receive quality care when choosing appropriate medications to alleviate their conditions.

 

2. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian balance each of the four principles in this case? Explain why. (45 points)

Using the Christian worldview, a Christian would balance between patient preferences and quality of life. For instance, patients would focus on their principles versus avoiding harm through wrong healthcare delivery. Autonomy ranks the highest since it guides the religious beliefs about healing. However, they should consider the quality of life, especially beneficence and non-malefecence. Bester (2020) maintains that beneficence is necessary in promoting the patients’ well-being. Their preferences should meet the need to receive quality healthcare through alleviating the conditions that result in harm. Besides, they must correlate preferences to beneficence, where patients receive adequate care to help them overcome their health challenges. Meanwhile, Christians would consider medical indications versus contextual features. Medical conditions address the need for medical professionals to avoid or prevent any harm that would affect the patient. In this situation, doctors would treat patients with emergency cases. Gillon (2020) outlines the role of beneficence and nonmalifecence in Hippocratic oaths and establishes justice for patients. However, these aspects underscore the value of fairness and justice. These elements cause the patients to fight for their rights against decisions that would favor other patients while they suffer. According to Everett, Faber, Savulescu, & Crockett (2018), medical professionals should practice impartial beneficence. For instance, the question in the case focuses on the fairness in giving Sam’s kidney to James. They are children and do not have the chance to make decisions on their own. Therefore, making these choices require a critical review of the patient’s condition and how they can overcome their health problems.

Conclusion

            This report outlined the process of prioritizing the major principles of bioethics for Christian patients. The case study proved that conflicts between religious and healthcare perspectives can affect the delivery of care. From the analysis, Christian patients value autonomy. They blend faith and medical knowledge to make decisions. Meanwhile, they also appreciate beneficence, which advocates for doing good. Patients consider non-maleficence and justice as important elements of providing equitable treatment with no harm.

References

Avant, L. C., & Swetz, K. M. (2020). Revisiting Beneficence: What Is a ‘Benefit’, and by What Criteria?. The American Journal of Bioethics, 20(3), 75-77.

Bester, J. C. (2020). Beneficence, Interests, and Wellbeing in Medicine: What It Means to Provide Benefit to Patients. The American Journal of Bioethics, 20(3), 53–62. doi:10.1080/15265161.2020.1714793

Everett, J. A., Faber, N. S., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018). The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. Journal of experimental social psychology, 79, 200-216.

Gillon, R. (2020). Raising the profile of fairness and justice in medical practice and policy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(12), 789-790.

John, S., & Wu, J. (2022). “First, Do No Harm”?: Non-Maleficence, Population Health, and the Ethics of Risk. Social Theory and Practice.

Ubel, P. A., Scherr, K. A., & Fagerlin, A. (2018). Autonomy: What’s shared decision making have to do with it?. The American journal of bioethics: AJOB, 18(2), W11.

BUY A CUSTOM- PAPER HERE ON;PHI 413v Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Assignment

Assessment Description
This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case. Organizing the data in this way will help you apply the four principles and four boxes approach.
Based on the “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” and other required topic Resources, you will complete the “Applying the Four Principles: Case Study” document that includes the following:
Part 1: Chart
This chart will formalize the four principles and four boxes approach and the four-boxes approach by organizing the data from the case study according to the relevant principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.
Part 2: Evaluation
This part includes questions, to be answered in about 500-600 words, that describe how principals would be applied according to the Christian worldview.
Remember to support your responses with the topic Resources.
APA style is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Remember to support your reflection with the topic Resources.

Attachments
PHI-413V-RS-T3ApplyingFourPrinciplesCaseStudy.docxPHI-413V-RS-T3T5CaseStudyHealingAn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALsluAKBZ-c THE OLD TESTAMENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0BrP8bqj0c THE NEW TESTAMENT

https://www.gcumedia.com/tncc/whole-person-care/understanding/v2.1/#/slide-11
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/incorporating-spirituality-patient-care/2015-05
https://lc.gcumedia.com/phi413v/practicing-dignity-an-introduction-to-christian-values-and-decision-making-in-health-care/v1.1/#/chapter/3
https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/sacrifice-and-atonement/
https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/messiah/