Applying the Four Principles: Case Study

Running head: CASE STUDY APPLYING THE FOUR PRINCIPLES 1
Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Students Name
Institution Affiliation

CASE STUDY APPLYING THE FOUR PRINCIPE 2
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 Non-maleficence
Patient Preferences
Autonomy
Medical indication is the clinical information that is needed and
used in the diagnosis of disease and the extent to which the
condition has affected the patient (Koepsell, 2017). Medical
indications are consequently utilized in the determination of the
appropriate mode of treatment (Rusthoven, 2014). Beneficence
is acting with the best interests of the patients in mind by
balancing the benefits of a given method of treatment against
the costs and risks involved. Conversely, non-beneficence
indicates avoiding causing any harm to the patient (Rusthoven,
2014). In the case study, Mike and Joanne were acting in the
best interest of their son regardless of James' medical
Patient's preferences signify the voiced option of the
patient or the designated decision-maker (Sanders, 2015).
Autonomy refers to an individual's right to make their
own decision (Rusthoven, 2014). In the case study, James
is considered a child as he is eight years hence cannot get
his right to autonomy. James parents, however, should
have sought the decision of James before making their
decision regardless of their son's age. The medical
practitioner could not alter the decision. However, he
could have engaged the parents on the outcomes and the
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

CASE STUDY APPLYING THE FOUR PRINCIPE 3
indications conditions would get worse if not treated. Mike and
Joanne had no intentions of harming James and had no option
when their son conditions did not get better.
consequences involved.
Quality of Life
Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Autonomy
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness
Quality of life refers to the pertinent medical features of a
patient's life before and after they have undergone treatment
(Polzer& Engebretson, 2012: Koepsell, 2017). In the case study,
the condition of James is identified to be worse before
treatment; however, after undertaking dialysis, his situation
became better. James, however, requires a kidney transplant to
manage his condition efficiently. Mike was of the idea that
James' brother could offer his kidney; however, he still was
reliant on healing through faith. Regarding previous encounters,
the parents are required to seek their son's opinion regarding the
matter since in the past, after relying on their faith their son's
condition worsened. Therefore the parents should act with the
Contextual features refer to the social, legal, and familial
setting the impacts a person's decisions regarding their
medical issues (Polzer& Engebretson, 2012). Mike's faith
that their son could be cured through prayers influenced
their decision regarding James' condition, instead of
consenting to him undergoing a kidney transplant. Justice
and fairness lay emphasis on equality. Conflict of interest
was identified where the ideal tissue match was found to
be that of James' brother. Mike and Joanne were willing
to allow kidney transplant from other donors, including
themselves but were reluctant to their son's kidney
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.