The Role of Miracles and Suffering in Christianity

According to Koopmans (2016), miracles of healing existed since the early church. From the bible, Jesus
performed many miracles to those who were suffering. He healed the sick, restored sight to the blind,
the lame he made them walk and even cured the lepers. Christians also believed that suffering is how
their faith is being tested and that it brings transformation to their lives (Zaki.et.al 2016). Jesus died on
the cross so as to safe man from sin. He suffered a lot before he died. Even though Jesus went through
all the suffering, he still had compassion to those who were suffering regardless of being a Christian or
not. Jesus performed all the miracles of healing so as to alleviate suffering and pain of those involved.
This shows that Christians should use any means available to alleviate suffering and pain so that the sick
do not suffer. The bible also emphasizes on the issue of love. According to Kok (2015), Christians should
love their neighbors as they love themselves. Therefore, they should be of help to anyone who needs
their help.
The most pressing issue from this case study is the issue of decision making basing on religion (Graham-
brown.et.al 2017). Mike and Joanne are rooted in their religion that they disregard other interventions
that could be helpful to their son. They fail to recognize that even the disciples did not just preach the
gospel but they also healed the sick. Mike could have employed the medical intervention for his son
condition especially after an explanation by the medical physician. This poor decision has been shown to
bring much suffering to their son James instead of making him better. This is not allowed in Christianity
as even Jesus never allowed anyone to suffer for His sake instead, he made mane sacrifices so that
others can benefit. Mike should have therefore placed his son’s illness and suffering first before deciding
anything. Mike has not used his freedom of autonomy in a good way. According to scriptures, Christians
are not owners of themselves but they are owned by God. They are therefore not allowed to make any
decision they feel like especially if they are disadvantaging others. They should not abuse their freedom
from the demands of the law for salvation but are to use that freedom to pursue love not their own
selfish desires (Hockenberry and Wilson 2018).

Basing on the outcomes, Mike and Joanne should not be allowed to continue making decisions for
James. James is an eight year old boy and he is still young to make his own decisions concerning his
health. Even if Mike and Joanne are his close decision makers, the physician should not allow for
harmful decisions to be made (Coyne, Hallstorm and soderback 2016). Parents should not deny
treatment for their children especially if religion is involved. If a parent denies his or her child treatment,
it is considered as child neglect especially if there is treatment available for that condition. If mike and
Joanne could have accepted to start James on dialysis immediately, further kidney deterioration could
not have occurred. Dialysis is helpful in eliminating excess water and waste products such as urea when
the kidney is not functioning well. Accumulation of toxic products especially urea in the kidney for some
days damages the nephrons of the kidney and therefore further deterioration. When certain
percentages of the nephrons are damaged the kidney fails and waste products accumulate systemically
and can cause death due to uremia. Kidney transplant will help replace the function of the failed kidney
and has to be done promptly. If Mike is allowed to continue making decisions for James, then fatal
outcomes may occur especially with continued delay (Voscamp.et.al 2018).
According to ethics in medicine, a parent is allowed to make decisions for their children if they are
young or unable to make their own decisions (Rothman 2017). Ethics also allows medical practitioners to
challenge parent’s decisions especially if the decisions place the child at significant risk of serious harm.
The caretaker and the parent should reach a satisfactory resolution and if they don’t, child protection
agency or a court order may be required. Mike refusing treatment for His son is unethical. The refusal
should be considered as neglect or imprudent and appropriate action taken accordingly. Patient
autonomy is an act of allowing patient to make their own decisions concerning their health without a
healthcare provider trying to influence them (Murgic.et.al 2015). Health care provider should just
educate them and inform them about their condition but should not decide for them. In an event of a
minor, a parent is allowed to make decisions for his or her child. In the contrary, medical practitioners

have been allowed to overrule and interfere with patients preferences with the aim of securing patient
benefit or preventing harm. Therefore, patient autonomy is not satisfactory if it does not promote
beneficence. In the case study, the decisions made by Mike and Joanne are not of any benefit to James
instead, they are causing more harm to the patient. Mike is therefore not practicing patient autonomy
even after being told about the dialysis which could have been helpful to James. Mike has also been
informed about organ transplant but he is still rigid on giving in to the benefits to his son. His faith on
supernatural healing has clouded him enough to deny his son’s medical rights basing on biomedical
ethics.
According to Fox (2017), organ donation is a process of removing an organ surgically from one person
and placing it into another person. This is necessary especially when the organ of the recipient has failed
to function. Kidney transplant is the most common form of organ transplant. For organ transplant to
occur the tissue match of the donor and recipient should match so that rejection cannot occur. Most of
the time, organs match runs among family members and relatives. Sometimes, donors may not be
related in blood. From the case study, Mike should not be the one deciding whether Samuel should
donate his kidney to his brother or not. Healthcare practitioners should weigh the benefits and
disadvantages of organ transplant to both James and Samuel and the best solution to be brought out. If
the parents do not agree and the solution is of benefits to both children then the court should be
involved. This is mainly if the parents denied basing on their religion. From this case, mike and Joanne
have not followed ethical considerations on their decision making on James health. They have placed a
lot of emphasis on their faith without considering the suffering their son is going through. They have
also neglected their son’s right to medical attention (Hvidt.et.al 2016).
According to Linzey (2016), Christians should not see pain and hardship as a value to a potentially
transformative effect on the religious adherent. Early church believed that suffering brings an individual