dd

SSWk3Sub1.docx

The referencing and citing of scholarly work is mandatory to support the idea that is being presented in the participation discussion. ALL peer responses require an in text citation, a reference, and 6 or more sentences. References should be between 2018 to 2022.

Post 1:

In biomedical ethics, there are four broad guiding principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. These principles direct healthcare providers and researchers to respect individual patient decisions regarding their own healthcare, to provide quality care, and promote the well-being of all patients, while nonmaleficence states to do no harm, and lastly, justice indicates all patients should be treated equally (Zhu et al., 2020). Generally, I would rate the ethics in the order of autonomy, beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence. Patients need to be informed of all treatment options and all possible outcomes of the treatment, while at the same time the healthcare provider should respect the decision the patient makes regarding the care. On beneficence, quality care is something every healthcare provider should strive to achieve. This may, however, lead the provider to refuse care if, according to evidence-based practices, the negatives outweigh the positives of the treatment (Hoehner, 2020). Next, is justice as everyone should be afforded the same quality care without regard to race, ethnicity, creed, or socioeconomic status. Ideally, this would mean everyone could afford healthcare, but the scam of health insurance is a whole different topic. Lastly, I say nonmaleficence because if the other three are employed there should not be any harm.

Per the Christian biblical narrative, the ranking of the four principles of biomedical ethics would most likely be justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy. As Christians rely on His word to direct their morals and values and as it is their belief that every human is created in His image all people must be treated equally and just. Beneficence and nonmaleficence would both be a close second as providing compassionate care without doing any harm are both fundamental to Christian values. I leave autonomy last as there still seems to be a great debate among the Christian community regarding this principle and who it may apply more to in the event of pregnancy and abortion.

References

Hoehner, P. J. (2020). Biomedical ethics in the Christian narrative. In Grand Canyon University [GCU], Practicing Dignity: An Introduction to Christian Values and Decision Making in Health Care (ch. 3). https://lc.gcumedia.com/phi413v/practicing-dignity-an-introduction-to-christian-values-and-decision-making-in-health-care/v1.1/#/chapter/3

Zhu, L., Zhang, S. & Lu, Z. (2020, March 19). Respect for autonomy: Seeking the roles of healthcare design from the principle of biomedical ethics. HERD: Environments Research and Design Journal, 13(3).

https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/1937586720908

Post 2:

It is important to emphasize some ethical values even while medical organizations are changing. It is stressed that maintaining the standard of patient care is important because a more complex healthcare system is on the horizon. Medical ethics is a word that is closely connected to biological ethics, but it is primarily concerned with moral questions that arise throughout the course of medical practice and research, including those involving abortion, euthanasia, and medical treatment choices. Because everyone has a distinct viewpoint and may interpret things differently, it struck me as being quite intriguing because it discusses bioethics as a subjective matter based on what I had read (Hoehner, 2020). The four principles include autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice. The reading claims that autonomy is the capacity to make decisions on one's own and that individuals have the freedom to do so. The moral rule of nonmaleficence states that one should refrain from harming others or stop them from doing so on purpose. To be beneficent is to act kindly and give someone something. Although there are many different ways to define justice, in general it refers to what is fair, legal, rational, right, and honest (Hoehner, 2020). The value of beneficence should, in my opinion, come first. Additionally, by not acting improperly toward one another, nonmaleficence and beneficence go hand in hand. Thirdly, autonomy respects the patient's rights to stand by their decisions as long as they are secure. The patient should be respected and treated fairly, to sum it up. All individuals, regardless of age or ethnicity, should have equal access to healthcare. The biblical narrative serves as a "guide" for understanding the four principles, which helps a Christian healthcare professional make moral and ethical decisions at work. Prior to learning how the four principles were prioritized in the reading, it seemed likely that I would concur with the Christian worldview's arrangement of these ethics. I do believe that there is a precise period when it is appropriate, and that it may change depending on the circumstances in order to best honor each individual.

References

Hoehner, P. J. (2020). Biomedical ethics in the Christian narrative. In Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care. God, humanity and human dignity. (Chapter 3). Grand Canyon University. https://lc.gcumedia.com/phi413v/practicing-dignity-an-introduction-to-christian-values-and-decision-making-in-health-care/v1.1/#/chapter/

Post 3:

Sensitivity to the role of personal and religious values in understanding and resolving dilemmas in clinical ethics focuses primarily on the beliefs of patients and families. However, the professionals involved in these dilemmas are also persons and, as such, have their own personal and religious values. Involvement in counseling about, or especially performing, procedures such as abortion, sterilization, withdrawal of life supporting treatments, physician-assisted suicide, and so on might violate the precepts of a health care professional’s religious values and even promote barriers on applying the four principles of bioethics in a Christian viewpoint. When approaching the four principles of bioethics in the Christians viewpoint, the principal of beneficence take priority ((K. Kocańda, S. 2022).

Principle of beneficence

The ordinary meaning of this principle is that health care providers have a duty to be of a benefit to the patient, as well as to take positive steps to prevent and to remove harm from the patient. These duties are viewed as rational and self-evident and are widely accepted as the proper goals of medicine. This principle is at the very heart of health care implying that a suffering supplicant (the patient) can enter a relationship with one whom society has licensed as competent to provide medical care, trusting that the physician’s chief objective is to help. The goal of providing benefit can be applied both to individual patients, and to the good of society as a whole. For example, the good health of a particular patient is an appropriate goal of medicine, and the prevention of disease through research and the employment of vaccines is the same goal expanded to the population at large (Vearrier, L.,2021).

Principle of nonmaleficence

The principle of nonmaleficence requires of us that we not intentionally create a harm or injury to the patient, either through acts of commission or omission. In common language, we consider it negligent if one imposes a careless or unreasonable risk of harm upon another. Providing a proper standard of care that avoids or minimizes the risk of harm is supported not only by our commonly held moral convictions, but by the laws of society as well Law and Medical Ethics. This principle affirms the need for medical competence. Medical mistakes may occur; however, this principle articulates a fundamental commitment on the part of health care professionals to protect their patients from harm (Vearrier, L.,2021).

Principle of justice.

Justice in health care is usually defined as a form of fairness, or as Aristotle once said, "giving to each that which is his due." This implies the fair distribution of goods in society and requires that we look at the role of entitlement. The question of distributive justice also seems to hinge on the fact that some goods and services are in short supply, there is not enough to go around, thus some fair means of allocating scarce resources must be determined. It is generally held that persons who are equals should qualify for equal treatment. This is borne out in the application of Medicare, which is available to all persons over the age of 65 years (Vearrier, L.,2021).

Principle of respect for autonomy,

Any notion of moral decision-making assumes that rational agents are involved in making informed and voluntary decisions. In health care decisions, our respect for the autonomy of the patient would, in common parlance, imply that the patient has the capacity to act intentionally, with understanding, and without controlling influences that would mitigate against a free and voluntary act. This principle is the basis for the practice of "informed consent" in the physician/patient transaction regarding health care (K. Kocańda, S. 2022).

References

K. Kocańda, S. Głuszek, M. K. Szerla, & M. Domagała. (2022). Respect for illiterate or unconscious patient’s autonomy as a requirement for the legality of medical procedures in the polish healthcare system: a case report and review of the literature. Patient Safety in Surgery, 16(1), 1–8. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s13037-022-00337-6

Vearrier, L., & Henderson, C. M. (2021). Utilitarian Principlism as a Framework for Crisis Healthcare Ethics. HEC Forum, 33(1/2), 45–60.

Post 4:

The four core principles of medical ethics are autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. I believe that autonomy would be the first most important of the four because in medical decision making it would be important for the patient to act intentionally, with understanding, and without influence of anyone else which is basic for practicing “informed consent” (McCormick, 2018). Second, I would say is nonmaleficence because we should never intentionally create harm or injury to anyone. It would be negligent to impose a careless or unreasonable risk of harm upon a person. Next, I would say beneficence because we should always prevent harm to others and provide benefits to them. Last, I would choose justice which requires fair distribution of benefits, risks, and costs. Everyone should always qualify and receive equal treatment. In society there are always many factors to consider as criteria for justice. Some claim that many inequalities are result of “natural lottery” where affected individuals are not to blame, so society should help to even the playing field by providing resources to overcome the disadvantaged situation (McCormick, 2018).

In the context of the Christian biblical narrative, I would say beneficence would come first because the bible always talks about the importance of doing good for others. “Christians are implored to works of beneficence, or charity, by the example of Jesus and God’s way of dealing benevolently with his creation” (Hoehner, 2020). Second would be nonmaleficence since God would not want us to harm others. Next would be justice which is a concept very much supported by the bible since it leads to a peaceful and quiet life. Autonomy I think would be last since it really depends, the Christian view respects autonomy as long as it complies with moral law, such as the sanctity of all human life and to not take a human life.

References

McCormick, T. (2018). Principles of Bioethics. UW Medicine Department of Bioethics and Humanities. https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine/bioethics-topics/articles/principles-bioethics