Case Study: Healing and Autonomy

Case Study: Healing and Autonomy

Mike’s Decision and Physician’s Responsibility to James

According to Reach (2014). Autonomy is considered as the patient’s liberty to make personal decisions and where patients lack the capacity the caregivers or family members make decisions on their behalf. Compliance is required of the physician in cases where autonomy rules, however, if the decision made endangers the patient’s wellbeing then the physician’s decision out rules autonomy.

Christian beliefs play a key role in making ethical decisions for believers. Mike and Joanne are active church members and just like any other Christians they believe that God has the power to heal (Hall, 2014), however, their efforts have proved futile since James’ condition is worsening. As a result, there is a need to determine the extent of ethicality alongside the Christian beliefs and values in this particular case. Their decision worsens their son’s condition and is therefore considered an unethical decision due to the wrong outcomes (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001).   The physician acknowledges that James needs a kidney transplant in a year. He/she further knows the negative implications of delayed treatment and therefore should not allow the irrational decisions that Mike is making regarding his son’s health. The physician should let Mike and his wife understand the negative health implications of delaying the treatment process and explain to them that while religion part of human existence, there is need to bridge a gap between the physical and the religious aspect of life.   Mike and Joanne have allowed their Christianity belief to crowd their judgment regarding their son’s well-being. The physician should make them understand the facts about kidney dialysis from a medical perspective.

Christians Views on Health and Sickness

Christians have diverse views regarding health and sickness. However, all Christians must embrace sickness and health as part of human existence. They should shun the belief that sickness is part of suffering due to wrongdoing; the bible demonstrates instances when God used sicknesses on faithful individuals like Job as a test of faith (Testament 2015).

Mike believes that James’ need for a kidney transplant whose donor is his twin brother is a real test of faith and that he requires to uphold that faith more than ever in that particular instance. Other Christians acknowledge that sickness resulted from the fall of man, however, they should shun from believing that they are subjects of pain and suffering due to disease. Amidst these beliefs, God requires them to have good health. It, therefore, their responsibility to take good care of their bodies as the temple of God They should further, maintain high quality of life (Testament 2015)… Medical interventions while sick are therefore inevitable for Christians. God requires Christians to acknowledge and respect the role of physicians in administering treatment. This is because they are giving a service which is a demonstration of God’s love. Opposing medical intervention is against the scripture in Mark 2:17 Jesus acknowledges that” it is not healthy who need a doctor, but the sick”. Therefore Mike’s parents should be bound by the scripture especially when they decided to forego dialysis for their son and seek faith instead and in the case where he refuses the option of a kidney transplant and considering it as a test of faith.

According to Meilaender (2013), the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence are key in provision of medical services. The physician’s interest as guided by the principle is based on the patient’s goodwill and maximum recovery. Non-maleficence, provide for safe handling of the patients and application of ethical guidelines while handling the patient while the beneficence principle is focusing on the needs of the patient in administering treatment. These principles further provide that physicians need to assess the patient’s symptoms which plays a role in diagnosis and administering treatment. The physician adopts immediate treatment measures for James to manage glomerulonephritis thus reducing the pain he is experiencing. James’ physician further upholds these principles of medical interventions by suggesting immediate dialysis for his condition and a consequent kidney transplant for the critical conditions. The physician further embarked on searching for an ideal match.

How a Spiritual Needs Assessment Help Determine Appropriate Intervention

Despite Mike making irrational decisions that prove detrimental to his son, the physician is expected to allow him make the decisions regarding the care services he prefers for his son to others as provided by the principle of autonomy (Hall 2014). Therefore, spirituality and spiritual assessment are key in providing appropriately for Mike to determine an appropriate medical intervention for James’. The physician should be open to determine Mike’s spiritual needs. Mike upholds the view of spiritual healing and therefore the physician’s intervention in swaying him to change his decision about kidney transplants is insignificant. The physician should learn more about his spirituality by asking him open-ended questions about his spiritual beliefs. He/she should further plan a meeting with Mike, his wife Joanne, and his religious leaders to determine the spiritual approach regarding dialysis and kidney transplants and seek spiritual solutions to James’ problem. The physician can further explain the prevailing medical condition and the most appropriate intervention in his/her medical point of view to the religious leader and ask him for intervention in swaying Mike’s decision on waiting for a miracle while his son’s problem requires a kidney transplant. Saguil & Phelps( 2012) indicated that a spiritual need assessment will guide the physician in integrating Mike’s spirituality in managing James’ condition, this will, in turn, build trust and rapport and broaden his relationship with Mike and all individuals involved for James’ well-being when Mike trusts the physician’s decision is in the best interest of his child, he will adhere to the physician’s recommendations and comply with the medical interventions suggested and in this case, he will accept a kidney transplant for his son

References

Beauchamp, C. (2001). TL Beauchamp, JF Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics.

Hall, H. (2014). Faith Healing: Religious Freedom vs. Child protection. Science and Religion. Retrieved September 9, 2016, from http://www.csicop.org/si/show/faith_healing_religious_freedom_vs._child_protection

Meilaender, G. (2013). Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (3^rd Ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Reach, G. (2014). Patient autonomy in chronic care: solving a paradox. Patient preference and adherence, 8, 15.

Saguil, A., & Phelps, K. (2012). The spiritual assessment. American family physician, 86(6), 546-550.

Testament, O. (2015). Holy Bible.