Benchmark-Patient's spiritual needs: Case analysis

Medical Indications

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences

Autonomy

· James suffers from acute glomerulonephritis which is a kidney failure that was brought about by streptococcus infection

· The infection is acute but on their first visit it was reversible through dialysis but due to the parent’s resistance, on their second visit it is irreversible and requires a kidney transplant.

· For the dialysis in the first diagnosis, the goal was to relieve the condition since it could not improve by its own or with antibiotics since the patient was having elevated blood pressure. On the second visit, the dialysis would only temporarily relieve the condition but the transplant was a necessity to treat the condition which had become irreversible.

· So for the antibiotic treatment, the probability for the treatment to be effective was close to zero due to the blood pressure. The dialysis at first was the effective treatment but since they delayed and condition became irreversible, then transplant was the only way out.

· The risk for transplant is although the kidney matches, the body may fail to accept the kidney. Also the matching kidney was from the 8 years old twin brother who was to lose one kidney at a tender age.

· But the transplant of the kidney would treat the condition completely and safe James’ life (Gillon, 2018).

· James is unable to co-operate with medical treatment because he was of a tender age of 8 years thus he cannot make any decision since he was not at legal age for decision making. His parents however were unwilling to take the dialysis due to their Christian believe that God would treat their son.

· Although the patient may have been told the condition, both parents had been informed all the risks of diagnostic and treatment recommendation. They had understood but were at a crossroad whether to give consent or not considering both the patient and the donor were 8 years old.

· The patient was not legally competent to take any decision

· Due to his legal incapacitation, the appropriate surrogate was both his parents Mike and Joanne.

· Since the surrogates were the parents, they were given the full authority for decision making (Gillon, 2018).

Quality of Life

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features

Justice and Fairness

· Without the treatment, the patient was at risk of losing his life within a year or so. He would have to get dialysis on most part of his remaining life. With the successful transplant, the patient would go back to a healed normal life. The only physical deficit that would be experienced is the brother who is the potential donor to lose his kidney and both brothers to survive with one kidney.

· The criteria to evaluate the quality of life of James were putting his life as a priority. The first time the parents made a mistake that complicated their son’s condition. To avoid a repeat of this, the decision that involves saving his life would be the prioritized decision.

· Being the fact that the donor is a kid of 8 years who cannot regally make the decision alone but the parents have to give the consent, the ethical issue arising and the bias that may prejudice the provider’s evaluation is that they might have to operate a minor and take an organ out of them without their consent or regal age (Gillon, 2018).

· On this issue, the decision to continue with the transplant raises issues of fairness since the donor has to be the 8 years old brother who is a minor.

· There is no professional or interprofessional or business interest that may create a conflict on the treatment.

· The parents of the patients have the legitimate interest in the clinical decision since the transplant involves both their sons.

· There are no limits imposed on Mike and Joanne since they are the parents to the patients and the patient has not yet reached the regal age for such decisions.

· There are religious factors that might influence the decision since the parents were considering like the first visit turn to God to heal their son. At first that idea had failed so they feared a repeat (Gillon, 2018).

In this case, according to the Christian worldview Beneficence is the principle that is most pressing. This is due to the fact that the parents on choosing to pray for the son rather than go for the dialysis were an act on the best intentions to their son. Remember after getting to know the benefits and the risks involved, in their best interest opted to pray for the son so as to avoid him undergoing the risks associated with the dialysis. They had Faith as Christian and that’s why we cannot blame them on choosing Prayers than treatment. They acted on good faith that is why they brought him back on noticing he was deteriorating (Carr & Winslow, 2017).

According to the Christian belief, each life is God given and only God can take that life. However, knowing that God has given the medical knowledge to people so as to sustain life. From their world view, the principles would specify and ranked autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice. The autonomy would be ranked first since respect of freedom is an important theme in the Christian teaching. From the scriptures more specifically the Genesis, God created Man and gave him freedom to make choices. Christian teachings show how God created and respected free will. This would rank first since it emphasizes that after the physician diagnosis a patient, they seeks to inform the patients or the guardian and then respect the free choices made by the patients,

Non-maleficence would follow second since it is the principle that offers the caregiver a moral obligation to not cause any harm to another as they make their decision to act on the best benefit of the patient. The third is Beneficence as it is the God’s command to love others as you love yourself. This principle dictates how we treat and relate with patients and how the caregiver should seek to benefit the patient with the minimum risk. The final would be justice (Carr & Winslow, 2017). This is because this principle requires that all the patients be equally treated and the resources shared fairly. Each patient requires to be treated with the same level of compassion and dignity no matter the race or background. This according to the Christian teaching shows how everyone is equal on Gods eyes and people should be treated with equality.