Topic 3: Applying the Four Principles: Case Study Part 1: Chart (60 points) Ethical Issues Based on the Principles of Beneficence Nonmaleficence, autonomy and Justice and Fairness

Topic 3: Applying the Four Principles: Case Study Part 1: Chart (60 points) Ethical Issues Based on the Principles of Beneficence Nonmaleficence, autonomy and Justice and Fairness

 

Medical Indications

 

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

 Patient Preferences

 

Autonomy
  • On the principle of beneficence there was a chance to reduce the risk of serious and preventable harm.
  • This could be by denying Mike a chance to find a religious center and continue with dialysis, which could have saved James’ kidneys
  • The principle of nonmaleficence is also an issue as the doctors are bound to do no harm to Samuel, the other identical teen.
  • The health practitioners guaranteed autonomy by allowing Mike to take James to a healing center instead of a dialysis
  • There is an issue with the autonomy of Samuel, who is a match for James who now needs a kidney transplant
Quality of Life

 

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

 Contextual Features

 

Justice and Fairness
  • The quality of life was compromised through the principle of autonomy where Mike was allowed to take James home even though his condition was dire
  • When James was taken from the care the first time, the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence were violated unintentionally.
  • Justice was evident through the treatment of Mike and James when they were in and out of the hospital. It was clear that the hospital respected Mike’s faith and when James got sicker, they were willing to take them back in and they did not treat them any differently.
  • Fairness is still an issue, as Samuel is a potential donor but it seems unfair to subject him to donation when he is under the consenting age and does not understand truly what is happening.

Part 2: Evaluation

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 explai

Order a similar paper

Get the results you need


Consult a tutor