Benchmark - Patient's Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

Medical Indications

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences

Autonomy

· The physician is acting in the best interest by putting James on immediate dialysis.

· The nephrologist is also doing everything they can to advise the family concerning a kidney transplant.

· After failing to find a match, the nephrologist suggests the only person with a match who would save James’ life is James, his brother.

· The parents are also doing everything they can, even after medical indications show that their son's condition worsens and needs treatment.

· James is an underage kid and cannot make the decision on his own. Therefore the parents have to decide for him. However, they should consult with him to see if he is comfortable with their decisions on his behalf.

· James’ parents practice autonomy by:

· deciding to take him to a healing service instead of dialysis.

· The parents returned James to the hospital after the healing service to see if he was healed.

· The parents also offered to donate their kidneys to James.

Quality of Life

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features

Justice and Fairness

· The physician focuses on what is best for James, hence suggesting dialysis as a temporary option because he needs a kidney transplant. In addition, the nephrologists observe that the only match for a donor for Jams is his brother Samuel and it is the only way for James to recover.

· James' parents feel that a healing service will work for their son instead of dialysis. However, when it does not work, and they are left with the kidney transplant option, they offer to donate their kidneys, including the church members who offer to donate, but one of them is a match. Finally, they have to decide if they will accept the advice to have Samue donate his kidney.

· His parents should discuss with James regarding the issue and listen to his views. The last time they leaned on their faith, their sin's condition worsened; therefore, they should choose the medical option, which is right.

· Justice and fairness involve deciding if it is ethical to have Samuel donate his kidney to his brother James or look for another option. His parents are still wondering if this is the actual test of faith, while the medical professionals believe that this is the best approach for James to be healed. However, they did everything they could by offering to donate their kidney and allowing other offers for a kidney transplant.

The Christian worldview holds beneficence as the most pressing principle (Dall’Agnol, 2016). This is because the parents are doing everything in the best interest of James. They believe in God and religion and therefore believe that their son will be healed through intense prayers and faith. Consequently, they prioritize prayers over the dialysis and kidney transplant their doctor has suggested to them so that their son’s medical condition improves. Therefore, it is understandable that they believe prayer will heal their son because they are acting in his best interest. Non-maleficence denotes the responsibility of a physician not to harm the patient. Their physician is also obligated to do everything they can to choose the safest option for James, so they are suggesting a kidney transplant, and the only match for them is Samuel. Therefore, in this case, the medical professionals are focused on achieving the most favorable outcome for James instead of that which will bring more harm.

However, the Christian view, in autonomy, governs believers belong to God and not themselves; therefore, they are free to do what is right and not what they please (Santos, et al., 2017). The doctors should consequently focus on doing what is suitable for James instead of doing what they please. On the other hand, the parents believe they are doing what is right for their son, based on their Christian beliefs. Therefore, the two entities should involve a shared decision-making process to decide what is the right decision for James instead of what each party pleases. The conclusion they come up with should give James justice, meaning it should be ethical. Justice involves weighing up if something is ethical or not; in this case, his parents are weighing if they should lean on their faith or follow the doctor’s advice.

In the Christian worldview, a Christian can balance the four principles by prioritizing those most important to them. For example, a Christian might prioritize beneficence, followed by non-maleficence, justice and fairness, and finally autonomy. This is because Christianity governs that parents should love their children unconditionally, which is portrayed by acting in their best interest linked to the principle of autonomy. In addition, the Christian worldview governs that they should do what is right; therefore, they have to consider what is right for both James and Samuel in this context. Then, the Christian worldview states that parents should guarantee that no matter the circumstance, they should ensure no harm comes to their son, which is the principle of non-maleficence.

Therefore, as much as they hold their own beliefs related to religion, they should decide on that which will not bring harm to James and instead choose that which will heal him and improve his living condition. Christians are mandated to practice justice and fairness in everything they experience or come across (Wells, 2018). Therefore, everybody in this context, including the parents and the physicians, should act in a just and fair way towards solving the predicament and ensuring that the best interests of James are prioritized in every decision they consider. Christians should also give each other a chance to share their thoughts about various decisions connected to autonomy. Therefore, the parents are allowed to provide their opinions concerning the kidney transplant option and dialysis of their son James and if they should let their other son Samuel donate his kidney since he is the only known match for James.