How the Christian Worldview Specifies Each Principle in the Case

  



According to the Christian worldview, there are several ways in which the principles could be specified. The principle of beneficence which explains the duty to good could have been accomplished by the doctors (Varkey, 2020). After observing James’ critical state and listening to Mike’s needs, they allowed him to take the patient home regardless of the condition he was in. 

This caused more harm to the patient, leading to a more dire health issue which has proven to be hard to solve. The principle of nonmaleficence was unintentionally violated. By granting the principle of autonomy, the health practitioners unintentionally violated the principle of nonmaleficence as they ended up causing more harm to the patient.

While they knew the dire state of the patient, they allowed Mike to enjoy some autonomy and respected his decision to remove James from the care, and this led to kidney failure (Fowler & Schoonover-Shoffner, 2023). The principle of justice was evident because regardless of their religious standing, Mike and his family were not treated differently even though some of the staff could have expressed disapproval of how they handled the issue.



How A Christian Can Balance the Four Principles in the Case



It is evident that the case was a hard one for the practitioners. As a Christian, the four principles balance the requirements one must consider when offering care to the patient. Nonetheless, there would be better ways of going about the issues presented, ensuring the safety of the twins and the autonomy of their parents. On the principle of beneficence, it was evident that James was in a critical health condition and needed intervention immediately. 

However, to protect the patient, while maintaining autonomy, the hospital could have suggested inviting the healers over. This way James could have been under full-time supervision and the negative changes he went through could have been noticed sooner and measures taken to save his liver (Cheraghi et al., 2023). The principle of non-maleficence explains that medical practitioners have a duty not to do harm. Given they were quite aware of the critical condition that James was experiencing, they had a duty to deny Mike autonomy and do what was best for the patient as explained by Bogue et al. (2022).

However, they could have denied the principle of autonomy in kind, explaining clearly to Mike the consequences that awaited him if he chose to remove James under their care. The principle of justice and fairness is also complicated in the case especially because it now involves the other twin. The rush to save James’s life has been hard with no perfect donor available.

However, his identical twin brother can save him and even though Mike has to make the call, they should consult the young twin first. After making him understand what his brother was experiencing, they could ask him to consider donating his kidney and if he refused, they should not compel him to the task (Olejarczyk & Young, 2022).

It is impressive that other church members wanted to donate a kidney, and it is important to keep praying for James so he can get a match should Samuel feel uncomfortable about donating his kidney. Under the principle of justice, it is important to ensure that Mike is not treated differently because of his beliefs. Additionally, he should have spiritual support whenever he needs it even in the hospital.



References

Bogue, D., Hogan, M., White, N., Hoehner, P., Self, C., & Evans, K. (2022). Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and Decision Making in Healthcare. In Nursing Bay. Grand Canyon University.

Cheraghi, R., Valizadeh, L., Zamanzadeh, V., Hassankhani, H., & Jafarzadeh, A. (2023). Clarification of ethical principle of the beneficence in nursing care: An integrative review. BMC Nursing, 22(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01246-4

Fowler, M. D., & Schoonover-Shoffner, K. (2023). Rising to “The Highest Morals”—The Rich History of Nursing Ethics. Journal of Christian Nursing, 40(2), 86–95.