Spiritual Case Analysis

Medical Indications

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences

Autonomy

From the case, it can be noted that James’ health condition is deteriorating because his father decided to miss the dialysis in the name of seeking service healing miracle. James is suffering from kidney failure, and the doctor placed him under dialysis, but Mike, his father, did not want to put him under regular dialysis to seek a permanent solution. By missing the dialysis, the health condition of James worsened. He now requires a kidney transplant to save his life. He has a potential donor in his twin brother. A kidney transplant is the only option left to save the life of James, but his father sees the possibility of a service miracle. Kidney transplant can help James, but at the same time, it poses a great risk to Samuel, the donor, because of the surgery process and the difficult period of recovery.

Patient autonomy is one of the key aspects of this case. The case presents a perfect example of autonomy practice. The physician made sure he did not stand in the way of Mike’s will. He allowed them to seek service healing to find a solution for his son. He did block them from skipping the scheduled dialysis and took James to healing service for God’s intervention. The physician has also given them an opportunity of deciding whether they should allow Samuel to donate his kidney to James. Still, the physician respected the parent’s religious belief in the healing power of God.

Quality of Life

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features

Justice and Fairness

The concept of beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy are evident in this case. Because of missing dialysis, the condition of James has worsened to the extent that only kidney transplant can restore his health. However, the kidney transplant can put the life of the donor at risk. But it should be noted that there is no option left. The life of James relies on the kidney transplant, failure to which, he will die. It is up to Samuel to risk his life to save his brother. Mike has to make a decision on whether to allow Samuel to donate his kidney or stick to his belief in the service miracle intervention. He's taking too long to make a decision, yet the condition of James is continuing to worsen.

From the case study, it seems as if Mike has the sole authority of determining the health condition of James. He decided against going for the dialysis and opted for the healing service. Now, the physician is waiting for his decision regarding James’ kidney transplant. The beliefs and faith of Mike take center stage, but little information is given about Joanne, James’ mother. It would be fair and just to include the entire family in the decision-making process, including James and Samuel.

The most pressing principle, in this case, is autonomy. From the beginning, the physician respected the patient’s autonomy by giving his parents an opportunity to choose their preferred treatment approach. Autonomy is a paramount aspect, as evident in Mike's decision to skip the dialysis for the healing service. At the same time, James’ parents were given the opportunity of deciding whether James should undergo a kidney transplant after his condition worsens. They skipped the dialysis because they did not want to subject James to regular dialysis, which they believed was unnecessary and opted to find a lasting solution. The physician held a conversation with Joanne to talk about the diagnosis, treatments, and the risk of treatment options, as well as the risk that James may encounter if he fails to get medical attention. James’ parents are given the autonomy of deciding for his treatment option because he is a minor and cannot make appropriate decisions about his health. Mike acted autonomously to put his faith in service healing. James' condition is, however, getting worse, and he needs an immediate kidney transplant. In the medical decision, patient autonomy plays a key role in the determination of the choice of treatment (Beauchamp & Childress, 2014). It is the right of patients to make choices about their medical care without the influence of the medical provider. Health care providers are expected to educate the patients but not make decisions for them (Lawrence, 2017).

From a Christian worldview, the four principles can be ranks as follows:

a). Autonomy;

b). Non-maleficence;

c). Beneficence,

and

d). Justice.

Respect is given a lot of consideration because it helps bring us closer to God and fosters a good relationship with others in the community. During creation, God bestowed the power to rule the earth on humans. They were given the opportunity of making their own decisions, particularly between good and evil. As a result, physicians must respect the ability of patients to make their own decisions regarding health care (Ediger, 2015). According to the law of bioethics, patients have the right to know the available treatment options and make a choice on whether to accept or decline the presented options or medications (Beauchamp & Childress, 2014). Some decisions may not be in the best interest of the patient's health, but they are supposed to be respected by the physician. Ranked second is the principle of non-maleficence. Humans should not be subjected to harm (Lawrence, 2017). Nurses should make decisions that will improve the health condition of patients. The principle of magnificence advocates for the promotion of all that is goods. The principle of justice comes last, which considers the equal distribution of benefits and risks in research. Using fair results and procedures, research subjects should be chosen carefully.