Healing and Autonomy

Healing and Autonomy Case Study
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Healing and Autonomy Case Study
Part 1: Chart
Medical Indications
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences
Autonomy

The beneficence principle constitutes the physician’s obligation to take medical measures to alleviate James’ pain and suffering. The doctor recommended instant dialysis to improve the patient’s health as they waited for the family to find a compatible kidney donor. Accordingly, Mike and Joanne’s decision not to place their sick son under immediate dialysis undermined the nonmaleficence principle since such a decision caused more harm to the patient (Varkey, 2021).

As a minor, James (8 years) could not practice autonomy. It is challenging to consider patient preferences in the specific case study since a minor lacks capacity to make moral choices and rational decisions, thus lack self-determination. Mike and Joanne decided what needed to be done with their son’s body as “human beings of adult years and sound mind,” thus preferred prayers to medical interventions (Varkey, 2021).

Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness

Quality of life includes aspects linked to the patient’s wellbeing, particularly their subjective perception of the essential facets of their lives (Cai, Verze, & Johansen, 2021). It also connects to beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy within treatment and care services provision. In that way, the physician avoided medical errors that could harm their patients [undermine beneficence] and increase suffering [undermine nonmaleficence]. In addition, the parents’ inputs were considered in the treatment [autonomy] despite their decision resulting in their son’s health deterioration (Varkey, 2021).

The case study includes an ethical dilemma in that Mike and Joanne were torn between seeking spiritual help or trusting in the physician’s treatment and care services. In that way, it was unfair and unjust for the parents to seek spiritual help instead of going for the immediate dialysis intervention, thus leading to their son’s health deterioration. It could have been appropriate and fair to place James under dialysis while seeking God’s intervention simultaneously (Varkey, 2021).

Part 2: Evaluation
Question 1 Answer
The Christian could weigh the beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice principles in the case study by evaluating their role in enhancing patient wellbeing. They need to consider different principles in deciding the right or ethical course of action. In addition, the Christian should specify the specific details and context of the dilemm...