PHI 413 Week 5 Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

PHI 413 Week 5 Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

Benchmark-Patients Spiritual Need: Case Analysis

Religious beliefs and aspects related to spirituality are essential components of a holistic approach to healthcare provision. Many patients seeking medical interventions have religious and spiritual beliefs and practices that cannot be divorced from their perspectives on healthcare services they receive in health facilities. The implication is that health care professionals must consider these aspects as they make complex medical decisions while providing care to their patients and families (Katz & Webb, 2016). Analysis of a patient’s spiritual needs is critical in delivering effective and patient-centered care services, as this analysis shall demonstrate based on a case study. PHI 413 Week 5 Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

ORDER  A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER  NOW

Allowing Mike to Make Decisions Harmful to James

Based on the case’s details, the physician has a vital role to play in care and treatment provision for the patient’s benefit. Biomedical ethics are imperative that patients should exercise autonomy through their decisions. Physicians and other healthcare providers should respect such decisions and make all efforts to benefit the patients and minimize any potential harm (Erb, 2017). James is a minor whose autonomy is being exercised by his parents; in this case, Mike, his father. The physician should not allow James’ father, Mike, to make irrational decisions that are detrimental to the boy’s health. The physician should tell Mike about the harmful effects of such decisions and actions but should not make them on his behalf (Katz & Webb, 2016). As legally permitted to express his decision and autonomy concerning his son’s treatment, Mike needs to ensure that all the decisions he makes benefit James. The physician has a legal and ethical obligation to intervene in the case by making necessary recommendations and giving medical advice on what shall benefit the boy irrespective of the father’s decisions. Mike continues to postpone and decline treatment intervention that is very important for his boy’s better health and believes that James will be healed through miracles. Delaying the recommended kidney transplant would worsen the boy’s overall health and make his survival hard. The implication is that mike’s irrational decisions continue to harm James. The physician should intervene most appropriately and professionally to reduce any potential harm based on the principle of non-maleficence.

Christian’s Response to Sickness and Health, Medical Intervention & Mike’s Situation

Response to Sickness & Health

Christians have different ways of responding to sickness and health. For many Christians, illness and suffering arise due to various reasons. Firstly, the disease may be a sign of God testing one’s faith and belief in Him and if they can trust in His healing power. Therefore, sickness aims to strengthen one’s faith and trust in God because of his ability to conquer such evil. It is common for Christians to question their faith when faced with challenging situations and sickness in life. As such, sickness should work to demonstrate God’s healing power (Brown, 2019). Secondly, many Christians perceive sickness as God’s punishment for disobedience and not following his laws and commandments. Illness is a reprisal for sinning or doing evil things that are not pleasing before God.

Conversely, Christians believe that health is a gift from God. Christians believe that God blesses people with good health as a demonstration of his love and good deeds. Those with good health have faith and trust in Him. Christians are entitled to good health without sickness since illness demonstrates that God is not in control but evil. For example, in this case, Mike is confused about whether his faith is enough or if God is punishing him using his son’s situation. PHI 413 Week 5 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.

 

1. In 400-450 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 non-maleficence in James’s care?

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 harmful to James, or would that mean a disrespect      of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale.

1. 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.

Resources

This assignment uses a rubric. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

Rubric:

1. 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. 20%

2. 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 non-maleficence. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. 20%

3. 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. 30%

4. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. 7%

5. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 8%

6. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 5%

7. All format elements are correct. 5%

8. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. 5%

There are three different parts to this paper:

· Part one deals with Mike’s decision-making capabilities. 

· Part two deals with how to think issues related to sickness and health.

· Part three deals with a spiritual assessment.

Benchmark – Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis – Rubric

Collapse All Benchmark – Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis – RubricCollapse All

Decision-Making and Principle of Autonomy

60 points

Decision-Making, Christian Perspective, and the Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

60 points

Spiritual Needs Assessment and Intervention (B)

60 points

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

10 points

Documentation of Sources

10 points

Welcome to class

Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a 5-week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to.

I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you.

Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. PHI 413 Week 5 Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations.

Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements.

Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week.

I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!

Sincerely,

Name:  Discussion Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

		Excellent  90–100	Good  80–89	Fair  70–79	Poor  0–69
Main Posting:  Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.		40 (40%) – 44 (44%)  Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%)  Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. PHI 413 Week 5 Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis	31 (31%) – 34 (34%)  Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references.	0 (0%) – 30 (30%)  Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting:  Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%)  Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%)  Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%)  Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%)  Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:  Timely and full participation		9 (9%) – 10 (10%)  Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%)  Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%)  Posts main Discussion by due date.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%)  Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:  Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		9 (9%) – 9 (9%)  Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%)  Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%)  Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%)  Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response:  Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%)  Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%)  Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%)  Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%)  Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
First Response:  Timely and full participation		5 (5%) – 5 (5%)  Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%)  Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%)  Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%)  Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		9 (9%) – 9 (9%)  Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%)  Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%)  Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%)  Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%)  Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%)  Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%)  Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%)  Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response: Timely and full participation		5 (5%) – 5 (5%)  Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%)  Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. PHI 413 Week 5 Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis	3 (3%) – 3 (3%)  Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%)  Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.