The healing and Autonomy case study is based on a narrative about Mike, his spouse and the identical twins, James and Samuel. The household faces a challenge in regards to Christianity and the health of James who is ailing from Kidney failure. The family should also be dependent upon the doctor’s knowledge in their son’s treatment. Their devotion to God places them in a dilemma while choosing the right path to abide by regarding their son’s health. The paper assessing the healing and autonomy cases study will concentrate on the Christian Narrative, vision and biomedical ethics in issues that need reverence for justice, autonomy, beneficence, and Nonmaleficence.
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
|· In the case study, Mike and Joanne have a daunting task of choosing whether to seek medical treatment or seeing divine intervention in church.|
· Beneficence is considered as what James’ parents are undertaking. In this case, they are seen to act in the best intentions and not essentially with Nonmaleficence, as they can be doing damage by acting upon the best intents.
· Certainly, his parents bore no intent of instigating harm with their deferral in medical treatment and reverted to the hospice promptly as the condition deteriorated.
|· Autonomy stresses the patients’ rights in making their decisions (Timmins & Caldeira, 2017).|
· While this segment aims at getting the patient’s treatment preferences, James is a minor, 8 years and relies on his parents to make the best decisions. Nonetheless, James needs to be incorporated in the conversation.
· Within the case study, James’s view concerning his treatment inclinations is not stated.
|Quality of Life|
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy
Justice and Fairness
|· The clinicians presented the family with potential treatment alternatives and permitted them to exercise their sovereignty concerning treatment alternatives.|
· Neither his parents nor members of the church were capable of donating a kidney for James because tissue match.
· James’ family was in a predicament and were compelled to act in their son’s best interest
|· The medical team directed the family on the importance kidney transplant and dialysis.|
· James’ family should make an ethical pronouncement based on whether to utilize Samuel’s kidney in saving James.
Part 2: Evaluation
Within the case study, the most tenacious standard is beneficence. Nonetheless, autonomy is considered as the most recurring. According to Cowan (2014), being autonomous necessitates an individual to bear the ability to contemplate on a system, and implementing. This generates complications in the healthcare delivery, particularly if patients are comatose and incompetent which may be attributed to age or mental capability. While it is actually evident that his parents want no damage facing both James and Samuel, they might not entirely understand that by deferring James medical treatment, they have protracted his ailment and maybe augmented his anguish.
Moreover, with his ailment being additionally critical and necessitating the integration of austere measures, Samuel might now experience harm. Since Samuel is a precise tissue match to James, he has the ability to offer donate one of his kidneys to his sibling. Should Mike and Joanne opt to utilize Samuel as a benefactor for this sibling, both children may now face a significant threat. Both children may only possess a single kidney, making them both more vulnerable to kidney ailments, and James facing the risk of declining the kidney. However, the threat is low as Samuel is his identical twin. In addition, there is the likelihood of problems that accompany any key operation.
It is considered as challenging Christians to balance between science and faith. In the case study, Mike and Joanne are faced with a daunting task of making a choice regarding their sick son who requires a kidney transplant. James’ sickness places them in a dilemma regarding their faith in God or medical treatment. According to mmmm, Fairness and justice are regarded as significant bioethical code in the case study. Having Samuel as the donor might be a dangerous pronouncement that may lower the eminence of his future life. The benefactor and receiver are both minors who do not have the ability of making sound decisions. On the other hand, the principle of autonomy may be desecrated.
However, both parents may have to make their decisions based on the Christian worldview (Christian Worldview, 2018). The Christian parent should demonstrate love for their kids and acting in their best intent and ought not to cause any harm to them. Beneficences recognize that life is significant (Lawrence, 2015) Therefore, it is imperative to contemplate on Samuel’s wellbeing in as much as they contemplate on James. The parents and clinicians must not endanger the Samuel’s future. However, similarly, they should deliberate on James’ wellbeing who requires urgent care. The principle of Nonmaleficence prohibits individuals from instigating harm on other individuals.
Christian Worldview. (2018) Christian Politics-Justice, Freedom, and Order. Retrieved from https://www.allaboutworldview.org/christian-worldview.htm
Cowan, S. (2014). The Christian Worldview. Retrieved from
Lawrence, D. (2015). The Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics: A Foundation for Current
Timmins, F., & Caldeira, S. (2017). Understanding spirituality and spiritual care in nursing. Nursing Standard, 31(22).