Benchmark - Patient's Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

Medical Indications

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences

Autonomy

From the case study, it can be noted that James’ health continues to deteriorate, and it worries since he missed his dialysis. As a result, his blood pressure has increased. The condition to the extent that he needs a kidney transplant. He has a potential donor in his twin brother. Kidney transplant can save the life of James, but it may also pose significant harm to Samuel, who is going to donate the kidney. However, it is the responsibility of medical practitioners to ensure that James regains his health.

James' parents were given the autonomy to have control over his health. The health care provider allowed them to believe in God’s miracle to restore their son’s health. James’ parents deliberately skipped his dialysis schedule for a church healing service. The parents also had the autonomy to decide whether Samuel can donate his kidney to James, his twin brother. Seemingly, James’ father (Mike) preferred believing in is faith for his son’s healing. This case is a perfect example of respect for autonomy. The health care practitioner respected the parents’ belief in God and gave them the opportunity of deciding the intervention that would help James restore his health.

Quality of Life

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features

Justice and Fairness

According to the doctor, James’ health can only be restored through a kidney transplant; otherwise, he would die. However, this move may put Samuel’s health into risk because of losing one kidney through surgery. But Mike should understand that this is the only chance to have James alive. James' health lies in his hands. Failure to let Samuel donate a kidney may lead to James’ death. It is clear that Mike is struggling to decide between the kidney transplant and his faith in the healing service. He is taking long to decide, and this continues to worsen James’ health.

Mike has the autonomy of making decisions on James’ medical intervention. The case gives him the sole responsibility of deciding whether James should get a kidney transplant. However, Joanne (James’ mother) is seemingly not part of the decision making process. Emphasis has been put on the belief and faith of Mike. It would be fair to include Joanne in decision making. At the same, Samuel may be young, but he should be consulted on whether he can donate his kidney to his brother to save his life.

Respect for autonomy is the principle that takes center stage in this case. According to this principle, patients should have the authority to make their own decision regarding the medical intervention they need (Beauchamp & Childress, 2014). In this case, Mike is given the autonomy to decide James’ next medical intervention. He opted to forgo James’ dialysis schedule to seek God’s miracle healing. The physician did not interfere with their choices. Mike argued that subjecting their son to multiple dialyses is not a lasting solution to the problem and believed that only God could heal. The physician sat down with James' mother to explain to her about the importance of the dialysis, treatment options, risks involved, and dangers the child may experience if he does not get the right medical attention. He then left the final decision to them to make. Since James is still a minor, the parents assume autonomy responsibility. As a result, they acted by putting their belief in God’s healing first. However, this failed to bear fruits, and James' health continued to worsen. He needed a kidney transplant; otherwise, he would die. The principle of autonomy plays a key role in medical decision making, and physicians must respect the decision of their patients (Beauchamp & Childress, 2014).

Based on the Christian worldview, the four principles would be ranked based on their significance: Autonomy; b). Non-maleficence; c). Beneficence, and d). Justice.

Respect for autonomy is a major principle. Christians treat respect as a key component of relationship building with God and fellow humans. During creation, God provided man with the power to rule over the world and make their own choices. Christians expect physicians to respect patient autonomy. And according to the law of bioethics, patients have the authority of accepting or declining certain medical treatments, medications, or surgery (Lawrence, 2007). Some decisions may not serve the best medical interest of the patient, but physicians are expected to respect them.

As a Christian, I believe that the four principles should appear just as they are. Autonomy would form my first and major principle. Patients should have the chance to take part in their care and make decisions about their treatment interventions. I also value the principle of non-maleficence, and it would come second because I believe that humans should not be harmed. Physicians should make decisions that improve the health of patients (Ediger, 2015). The principle of maleficence, which promotes all that is good, would be ranked third. The principle of justice would be last. Among the four, it is the least applicable principle even though its significance in medical care cannot be ignored.