Patient Spiritual Needs Healing and Autonomy Case Questions
Patient Spiritual Needs Healing and Autonomy Case Questions
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. 1. 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
ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW
harmful to James, or would that mean a disrespect of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale. 2. 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? 3. 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. Part 1 Chart Medical Indicators Beneficence and Nonmaleficence • Considering the situation of James, the Physician suggested immediate dialysis in the best interest of James. • The parents step to take James for prayers was also in his best interest. • The parents brought him back when their faith did not help, and the situation got worse showing that they did not mean to harm him. Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, autonomy • James was in a stable condition when he was brought in the hospital, but the spread of A streptococcus made the condition acute requiring immediate dialysis. • The parents decided to take him to the pastor for prayers instead of permitting dialysis, and this did not work worsening the situation that damaged his kidneys. • With a kidney transplant, James will recover. • However, the only compatible donor is James’s brother, and his father is wondering whether to let Patient Preferences Autonomy • The parents are substitute decision makers because James is a minor 8 years old. • The parents had the responsibility of making the decisions. However, they should have consulted with James before taking any action to get his views. • The doctor needed to have expressed the concerns to the parents that the patient needs to be involved in decisions. Contextual Features Justice and fairness • The actions of James’s parents are influenced by their faith that prayers can heal him. • James’s father is still struggling on whether to depend on his faith or allow James to get a kidney from his brother • The case has a conflict of interest since the discovery that the potential kidney donor is James’s brother who is a close family • • his brother donate or trust in his faith. It is important for the parents to consult James on the issue as well as his brother. The best decision that acts on the best interest of James in allowing his brother to donate a kidney. Part 2 Evaluation 1. 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 Christian Worldwide view emphasizes on having good intentions for all people as well as trusting God to solve problems. In the case of James, his parents are Christians and witnesses of the greatness of God what he can do to heal. Therefore, they used the principle of beneficence which states that the actions taken should have the best intentions of the patient. Hence, Mike and Joanne decision to take their son for prayers were in the best interest of James. The parents did not want to put their son through the process of multiple dialyzes which maybe they perceived as too much suffering for their son who is young. Their faith appears to be the best solution that delivers immediate results considering that it previously helped heal a close friend. Their decision is understandable because of their belief that prioritizes prayers before medical treatment. Even though the condition of their son was pronounced to be acute and yet they still opted to trust their faith, the parents cannot be blamed for their worsening state of their son’s health because they acted in interest. Besides, they decided to bring their son back to the hospital for the dialysis as soon as they realized his health was deteriorating. 2. 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) A Christian ranking of the four principles as indicated in the case study is that the principle of Beneficence comes first. Beneficence principle states that one should act with the best intentions in their heart which what James’s parents did. The second principle is non-maleficence that argues that one should not harm others. The third principle is justice and fairness which is consideration of the law, society and family values (Macklin, 2003). The last principle would be autonomy which states that a person has the right to make individuals decisions. The principles according to the case study follow this order because parents must love their children and act in the children’s best interests which are linked to the principle of autonomy as James’s parents made his decision and acted in his best interests. The principle of non-maleficence requires parents to never harm their children from their choices or actions (Carr, & Winslow, 2017). Besides, in justification of justice and fairness is that Christians have the task of following the law and acting in fairness in all the circumstances that they face which includes treating people equally. The last principle is autonomy which is ranked last because in addition to their priorities Christians should also give others an opportunity to present their opinion mainly when the decision affects them directly even in cases of minors. 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?” Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis – Rubric No of Criteria: 8 Achievement Levels: 5 Criteria Achievement Levels Description Percentage Unsatisfactory 0.00 % Less than Satisfactory 65.00 % Satisfactory 75.00 % Good 85.00 % Excellent 100.00 % Content 70.0 Decision-Making and Principle of Autonomy 20.0 Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are not analyzed according to the principle of autonomy. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed from both perspectives, but the analysis according to the principle of autonomy is unclear. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed from both perspectives, but the analysis according to the principle of autonomy lack details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed from both perspectives with details according to the principle of autonomy. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed from both perspectives with a deep understanding of the complexity of the principle of autonomy. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decision-Making, Christian Perspective, and the Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence 20.0 Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are not analyzed according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, but the analysis is unclear. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence but lacks details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed with details according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed with deep understanding of the complexity of the Christian perspective, as well as with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Spiritual Needs Assessment and Intervention (CoNHCP 5.2) 30.0 How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is not analyzed. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is analyzed, but unclear. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed but lacks details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed with details. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed with a deep understanding of the connection between a spiritual needs assessment and providing appropriate interventions. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Organization, Effectiveness, and Format 30.0 Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0 Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. Argument Logic and Construction 8.0 Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0 Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0 Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct. Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0 Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Total Percentage 100
Purchase answer to see full attachment
