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 assignm

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 assist 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 assistance.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

BS in Health Sciences 1.2; BS Nursing (RN to BSN ) 5.2

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

Utilize the case study and the “applying four principles” assignment that I uploaded to answer the above questions.

Please use this reading material I have provided below as support to answer the above questions.

Read “Doinga 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

https://search-credoreference-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/content/entry/sppbioeth/advance_directives/0?institutionId=5865

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/end-life-and-sanctity-life-commentary-1/2005-05

https://lc.gcumedia.com/phi413v/practicing-dignity-an-introduction-to-christian-values-and-decision-making-in-health-care/v1.1/#/chapter/5

Please follow all directions given when writing this paper. Thank you.

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 assignm
Running head: CASE STUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS 0 Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Courtney Taylor Grand Canyon University Ethics and Spiritual decision Making in Healthcare PHI-413 Owen Smiley June 7, 2020 Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Applying the Four Principles: Case Study Part 1: Chart Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Patient Preferences Autonomy Beneficence implies a behavior attributed to the best intent in a person’s mind, as non-beneficence stresses on trying not acting to cause suffering or injury (Beever, 2016). Mike and Joanne served on the best intents regardless of the medical implications that James’s health status would worsen if it remained untreated. They proved their intentions of not injuring their son by bringing back James to receive treatment despite their initial stand. The expression of the patient’s choice is called patient preferences. Autonomy focuses on a person’s right to making a decision. James is an underage, eight years old, and he cannot exercise autonomy rights (Gillon, 2018). However, his parents need to consult him before making their decision. This consultation will determine whether James is okay with their decision. The physician has the power to influence this decision, but should talk to James’ parents. Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy Contextual Features Justice and Fairness Health status of Mike’s son before receiving medical treatment was worse. After consistent dialysis, the health status (condition) improved. Nevertheless, he requires a placement of a healthy kidney from another person to get a long-term solution for his condition. Mike had two options, either James’ brother to donate the kidney, or depend on their Christianity faith (Gillon, 2018). Depending on the last experience, the Mike and Joanne needed to first consult their son and understand his position regarding the health problem. They need to behave and take into consideration his exemplary interests in thought and permit him to receive a kidney placement from his brother because last time prayers did not work. Contextual features establish social, legal, and familial backgrounds that shape medical decision making (Gillon, 2018). The religious faith of the parents of James that it was possible to recover by God’s miracles shaped their medical decisions. Their consideration relied on their Christianity faith rather than permitting James to get a kidney placement from Samuel. Justice and fairness emphasize on equality with the limited resources (Carr & Winslow, 2017). The conflict of interest emerged when the compatible tissue was traced to be that of Samuel. Both Joanne and Mike were ready to permit other individuals to sacrifice one of their kidneys for James, but could not allow their son’s brother to give. Part 2: Evaluation Question One According to the believers’ point of view, beneficence is the most critical principle (Beever, & Brightman, 2016). The reason is that the parents act and behave while bearing the best of intents in their thoughts regarding their children. Christians portray their religious faith that their children recover or get healed by means of consistent prayers. They decide to pray intensively instead of seeking medical treatment from care facilities. Their strong faith becomes one of their driving forces to opt for prayers. It is unjustifiable to blame them for degenerating health of their kid, James, because they behaved in good faith and had no ill-intention that can cause harm to him. After realizing that the condition of James had deteriorated at a high rate, they opted for medical treatment in the hospital, a decision that was not encouraged during the initial stages of their son’s condition. By deciding for treatment, it meant that they did not want to be responsible for any harm or consequence of the untreated disease. With limited resources to treat James, his parents’ Christian friends and physician helped time at a time of desperation on where James can get a kidney, although no kidney could match. The reason was to have James get treatment in a just and fair manner. Question Two A Christian can prioritize the four principles in the case’s situation that beneficence leads, followed by non-maleficence, then justice and fairness and autonomy. The reason is that Christians perceive parents to portray love to their kids by doing what is the best and in line with kids’ desires that are connected to autonomy’s principle (Carr, 2017). Parents need to make sure that regardless the circumstance, they are responsible for protecting and not causing injury to their kids. This concept connects with the principle of non-maleficence. Christian believers require a practice of justice and fairness in daily undertakings and events (Gillon, 2018). They should do so by evaluating the two opposing sides, such as relying on prayers or medical treatment, then deciding on the way that does not have a conflict of interest. Any available treatment alternative put forward by a medical practitioner or Christian themselves must depict the potentiality of serving justice to parties involved. What they see as good to do should always be allowed to be done by others (Beever & Brightman, 2016). Lastly, Christians should also offer their fellows an opportunity to show their thought concerning a particular decision or act which is attributed to the principle of autonomy. References Beever, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2016). Reflexive principlism as an effective approach for developing ethical reasoning in engineering. . Science and engineering ethics, 22(1), 275-291. Carr, M. F., & Winslow, G. R. (2017). From conceptual to concrete. In World Religions for Healthcare Professionals, 31-45. Routledge. Gillon, R. (2018). Principlism, virtuism, and the spirit of oneness. In Healthcare Ethics, Law and Professionalism, 45-59. Routledge.
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 assignm
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?” © 2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.