Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative

Case Study on Biomedical Ethics
Author Name
Institution Affiliation
In this paper, I will analyze principalism and explain the meanings of four principle approaches: autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. As a nurse, I know that it is essential to allow patients to make their own decisions in order to speed up the recovery process. In the meantime, nurses are responsible for providing the best care to every patient and for dealing with them in a way that no harm is caused. This means both emotional and physical harms have to be avoided, and patients have a right to know when and how they are at the risk.
Autonomy
After reading the case study, I have understood that Joanne and Mike found that their son James’ kidney got failed. Both of them had an idea that the condition was of serious nature, meaning immediate care was needed. They were required to bring him to the doctor as soon as possible for dialysis. However, they did not bring him to the doctor for dialysis and instead took James to a faith healing service center. Joanne and Mike had promised that they would bring James to the hospital, but by then, his condition had deteriorated. The autonomy of both Mike and Joanne was respected: they were given a chance to choose between a medical center and a faith healing service center.
Beneficence
Once a physician was attended, it was important to provide James with immediate care. Dialysis was the only way to prevent further kidney damage or injury. Joanne and Mike took the wrong decision in the beginning and chose to be faithful, taking their son to a faith healing service center where they had seen their friends getting recovered, but this type of service could not work for James. Both parties (James’ parents and the physician) disagreed on what could benefit James on an immediate basis. Both of them had a right to make the decision, but the doctor was right because James’ parents were not supposed to waste time here and there given that he needed dialysis.
Non-malfeasance
The physician was responsible for providing immediate treatment to James, and he had an idea of what was needed. He was to provide him dialysis in order to restore the normal functioning of James’ kidney. The physician had no intention of harming th...