Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian

1
Running head: CASE STUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS IN THE CHRISTIAN
Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian
Name
Institution

CASE SUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS 5
BIOTHICS
Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of bullet
points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.
Medical Indications
Beneficence and No maleficence
Patient Preferences
Autonomy
The no maleficence principle requires that, the physician
restricts Mike’s decision of his preferred choice to seek religious
healing. The doctor’s dialysis treatment needs to overrule the
choice of action to be taken. The doctor has the knowledge of
the harm this decision is likely to course to James. The doctor is
in a better position to coerce Mike and Joanne to allow their son
to go through the dialysis treatment. Moreover, the doctor was
aware of how the quality of life would result in a lot of
satisfaction; if only the best decision of beneficence to coerce
the family consider dialysis would have been mad (e.
( Hakkarinen & Mark, 2015) This would have resulted to the
Mike’s decision to opt for a religious healing; a pastor’s pray for
God’s healing instead of temporary dialysis, is pegged on his
capacity to make his own moral choice. The moral choice needs
to be respected by the doctor. This autonomy principle however,
leads James to a worse health situation where he had to seek for
a kidney transplant treatment other than the temporary dialysis.
The autonomy principle needs to take the consideration of the
beneficence principle. (Jonsen,., Siegler,., & Winslade, 2010).
The preferred individual choice has to seek for the best
alternative course in order to avoid any harmfiul outcomes that
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

CASE SUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS 5
benefit of perfect health without resulting to other health
complications.
may be associated with it.
Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness
The respect to choice of the family for a religious intervention;
grated by the doctor portrays the autonomy principle. The choice
was not a good option. It later undermines James health
conditions even more. The beneficence principle regarding
individual interest, was not regarded by the doctor. (Meilaender,
207). The doctor was to coerce Mike to retract his decision and
adopt the treatment process as the best alternative course of
action. This choice conforms to no maleficence principle.
The doctor’s decision to allow the family consider religious
healing, is a sign of acting rustically and fairly to their freedom
of choice. The choice for their son’s healing. (Meilaender, 207)
The resulting outcome of the fair and justified decision,
however, worsens the harmful health condition from a temporary
dialysis to a kidney transplant. The harm on James health status
is no longer justified as fairness.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.