Posted: September 26th, 2022

PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study

PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response

Benchmark – Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

In addition to the topic study materials, use the chart you completed and questions you answered in the Topic 3 about “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” as the basis for your responses in this assignment.

Answer the following questions about a patient’s spiritual needs in light of the Christian worldview.

In 200-250 words, respond to the following: Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James, or would that mean a disrespect of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale.

In 400-500 words, respond to the following: How ought the Christian think about sickness and health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention ? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is truly honoring the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in James’s care?

In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the physician Help Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others involved in his care?

Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for Helpance. PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response

This benchmark assignment assesses the following competencies:

BS Nursing (RN to BSN)
5.2: Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.
Rubric
Attempt Start Date: 30-Sep-2019 at 12:00:00 AM

Due Date: 06-Oct-2019 at 11:59:59 PM

Maximum Points: 200.0

Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for Helpance.

This benchmark assignment assesses the following competencies:

BS Nursing (RN to BSN)

5.2: Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.

Study material:

-Read “End of Life and Sanctity of Life,” by Reichman, from American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, formerly Virtual Mentor (2005).

URL: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2005/05/ccas2-0505.html

-Read Chapters 13-15 in Called to Care: A Christian Worldview for Nursing.

URL: http://gcumedia.com/digital-resources/intervarsity-press/2006/called-to-care_a-christian-worldview-for-nursing_ebook_2e.php

-Read “Aligning Ethics With Medical Decision-Making: The Quest for Informed Patient Choice,” by Moulton and King, from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (2010).

URL: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48827861&site=ehost-live&scope=site

-Read “Doing a Culturally Sensitive Spiritual Assessment: Recognizing Spiritual Themes and Using the HOPE Questions,” by Anandarajah, from AMA Journal of Ethics (2005).

URL: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/doing-culturally-sensitive-spiritual-assessment-recognizing-spiritual-themes-and-using-hope/2005-05

-Read the “Medical Record – Spiritual Assessment” located on The Joint Commission website (2018).

URL: https://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/jcfaqdetails.aspx?StandardsFaqId=1492&ProgramId=46

-Read “Making the Case for Ethical Decision-Making Models,” by Cooper, from Nurse Prescribing (2012).

URL: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=2011892382&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Case Study: Healing and Autonomy
Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born 8 years ago. James is currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection. The spread of the A streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. Usually cases of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep infection tend to improve on their own or with an antibiotic. However, James also had elevated blood pressure and enough fluid buildup that required temporary dialysis to relieve.

The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After some time of discussion with Joanne, Mike informs the physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God. Mike and Joanne had been moved by a sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and also had witnessed a close friend regain mobility when she was prayed over at a healing service after a serious stroke. They thought it more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing service instead of putting James through multiple rounds of dialysis. Yet, Mike and Joanne agreed to return to the hospital after the faith healing services later in the week, and in hopes that James would be healed by then.

Two days later the family returned and was forced to place James on dialysis, as his condition had deteriorated. Mike felt perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James earlier. Had he not enough faith? Was God punishing him or James? To make matters worse, James’s kidneys had deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary matter and was in need of a kidney transplant. Crushed and desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate one of their own kidneys to James, but they were not compatible donors. Over the next few weeks, amidst daily rounds of dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also offered to donate a kidney to James. However, none of them were tissue matches.

James’s nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was stable, given the regular dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year. Given the desperate situation, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, but as of yet had not been considered—James’s brother Samuel.

Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have his other son Samuel lose a kidney or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real testing of his faith will come in? Mike reasons, “This time around it is a matter of life and death. What could require greater faith than that?”

Applying the Four Principles: Case Study Sample Student Paper
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information using bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.

Medical Indications
Beneficence and Non-maleficence

Patient Preferences
Autonomy

James had acute glomerulonephritis, which is another way of saying that he had kidney failure. The strep throat infection that caused the disease can heal on its own, but medicine can speed up the process. Because of his illness, James’s blood pressure and tissue fluid levels went up, and dialysis was the only way to temporarily lower them.
At first, Mike and Joanne thought that their son would get better if he believed in God. When that didn’t work, they thought dialysis, which the doctor had suggested, was a better option. On second thought, they decided that dialysis before the transplant was a good idea, which the nephrologist later agreed with.

In his 2007 PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response, Lawrence talks about nonmaleficence. He says that the doctor had a moral duty to help James stay healthy. On the first, the doctor said the child needed dialysis right away, but the parents did not agree. They thought dialysis would be dangerous, so they chose a faith healing service instead, which didn’t work in the short term. Mike and Joanne had to make the best decision for their kids. When they had to choose between faith and medical help, they did everything they could for their son’s health and well-being. Even though what they did was too late to help, it was the right thing to do.

In this case, the boy is only eight years old, so he can’t decide for himself how he should be treated. What his parents, Mike and Joanne, decide will affect everything. Ediger says in his 2015 PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response that it is ethical and fine for parents to take charge and make all the decisions about their children because of their age. The first doctor who took care of James respected the parents’ right to make their own decisions by letting Mike and Joanne put their faith in God instead of kidney dialysis to heal their son. The nephrologist suggested a kidney transplant for James when his health got worse. Samuel, James’s brother, was the only one who was a good match. Even on this point, the nephrologist respected the family’s right to make their own decision by giving them a choice. They had to decide whether to let their son Samuel lose a kidney or wait for God to do something amazing.
How good life is
Autonomy, Beneficence, and Non-Malficence

Contextual Features
Fairness and justice

Mike and Joanne went to the doctor first to deal with complications from their son’s strep throat infection. They were trying to get their son’s life back to the way they wanted it to be. When the situation got worse and their son’s kidneys stopped working, the family kept looking for medical and spiritual help to treat him. The doctor first suggested that she have dialysis every day. A few days later, a nephrologist suggested that she get a new kidney. All of these attempts and actions, taken together, were meant to improve the James’ standard of living.
When the doctor suggested kidney dialysis right away, the family should have agreed. Both the faith healing service and the clinical intervention could still be used. Even though they had been in the faith-healing service for a few weeks, they still decided to get dialysis.

When it comes to an equal and fair distribution of medical resources, like health insurance and donations, the idea of justice usually comes to the forefront (Lawrence, 2007). In this case, this principle is very important, even though it hasn’t been seen so often. If anything, the doctor is fair and gives the family just what they need, as shown in more than one way. First, the doctor suggested that James get dialysis. Even though James’s family didn’t agree and chose to pray instead, the doctor still did it when James came back two days later. The family was also fair with their child because when their hope for healing didn’t seem to work, they took him back for dialysis. The facility and James’s family put real value and quality on his life until a few people offered to give him a kidney. Even though it was a big problem for them, Samuel’s family still thought it would be a good idea for him to give his brother one of his kidneys. The family doesn’t want their son to be on dialysis for too long because it will hurt his quality of life.

Part 2: Assessment
Answer each of the following questions about how principlism would be applied:

In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, which of the four principles is most pressing in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
The most important of the four principalist principles in the healing and autonomy case of James’ illness is beneficence. James had acute glomerulonephritis, which is really the same thing as kidney failure. The condition started with a strep throat infection. It can get better on its own, but antibiotics can speed up the process. James’s condition caused his blood pressure and tissue fluid to go up, which could only be fixed with short-term dialysis.
With these clinical situations, both the family and the hospital were morally obligated to stick to a set of principles that say they should prevent harm, give the right benefits, and find the right balance between benefits, risks, and costs (McCartney, 2009 PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response).

The family knew everything there was to know about James’s condition, but they didn’t do everything they could to help their son. They took a risk by avoiding the costs and choosing a faith-healing service. In the end, they went back for dialysis. When it was first suggested, they should have gotten their son ready for dialysis. If they did this, they could still use the faith healing service, which wouldn’t be in conflict with the clinical approach.

The case has escalated too high until now the family is facing the most significant dilemma of whether Samuel can donate the kidney to the brother or wait for divine help again.

In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian rank the priority of the four principles? Explain why. (45 points)
In this case, there is a Christian family with a young boy who is still too young to make his own decisions. The most important of the four principles, then, is the one about doing good, followed closely by the one about not doing harm. When a problem already exists, Orr (2015). Recommend that the people involved do the things that would prevent more harm and help the patient at the same time, taking cost and risks into account. Mike and Joanne, who had the right to choose what to do for their son, needed to think about how by waiting to accept clinical help, they were putting the child through more and risking his life without paying much. To keep James from getting hurt any more, they had to first listen to what the doctor said and then act on faith. Respect for autonomy is the third most important thing. The doctor did the right thing by letting the family decide how to treat their son, since they were paying for it and any pressure would be on them. In this case, there was no problem with justice because it was done right. Dialysis was finally done as needed, and James’s family was almost ready to look for a kidney donor.

References:

Ediger, M. J. (2015). Teaching Clinical Ethics Using the Four Topic Method. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 20(6), 10-13.
Lawrence, D. J. (2007). The four principles of biomedical ethics: a foundation for current bioethical debate. Journal of Chiropractic Humanities, 14, 34-40.
McCartney, J. J. (2009). HOSPITAL ETHICS COMMITTEES. The Penn Center Guide to Bioethics, 137.
Orr, R. D. (2015). Incorporating spirituality into patient care. AMA journal of ethics, 17(5), 409-415.
PHI413V Grand Canyon University Healing and Autonomy Case Study Response Rubric

Order | Check Discount

Tags: 150-200 words discussion with a scholarly reference, 200-300 words response to classmate discussion question, 250 word analysis essay, bachelor of nursing assignments, case study