Principles of Bioethics: Case Study

Running Head: PRINCIPSLISM OF BIOETHICS
1
Applying the four principles: Case Study
Student’s Name:
University Affiliation:

Running Head: PRINCIPSLISM OF BIOETHICS
2
INTRODUCTION
Principalism encompasses the four bioethical approaches which aim at
ensuring the wellbeing of patients while causing no harm and considering
the need. In the ancient days upon competition of medical school, a
practitioner was to take an oath of Hippocrates known as the father of
medicine to protect life and never to administer a drug that could cause
harm to a patient. However, with the advancement in the medical field, it
was only ideal for the development of the four-principle approach to ensure
patients are protected.
Data on the four principles based on the case study
Medical indications
Beneficence and
Nonmaleficence
Patient Preference
Autonomy
1. Beneficence
 Due to James condition of
acute glomerulonephritis
accompanied with elevated
blood pressure together with
fluid buildup, an immediate
dialysis was required to help
stabilize his condition.
 Upon return from the healing
service, James parents were
forced to allow a dialysis be
done since his condition had
seriously deteriorated
 James condition stabilized as a
result of the dialysis however
a kidney transplant was
required within the year.
2. Nonmaleficence
 In the case study Mike
struggles to decide whether to
have Samuel donate a kidney
1. Autonomy
 Mike and Joanne decide to
forego the dialysis and place
their faith in God. This
decision was made after they
witnessed a close friend who
had suffered from stroke gain
mobility after she was prayed
for in a healing service.
 They also agree to return to
the hospital within the week in
the hopes James would have
been healed from the healing
service.

Running Head: PRINCIPSLISM OF BIOETHICS
3
to the brother or wait upon the
Lord to perform a miracle.
Here it is a matter of life or
death.
Quality of life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence
and Autonomy
Contextual Feature
Justice and Fairness
1. Beneficence
 Owing to the state of James
condition, the physician
suggested an immediate
dialysis to the parents so as to
help improve his health.
 In order to completely stabilize
James health, his twin brother
who is his perfect match is to
donate him one of his kidneys.
2. Nonmaleficence
 Mike has fears on the
consequences of Samuel
having to donate one of his
kidneys to his brother and
hence he is struggling to
decide whether to allow
kidney donation from Samuel
or wait upon the Lord.
 He also fears what if his faith
fails? what would be the effect
on James? He concludes by
saying it is now a matter of life
or death.
3. Autonomy
 After a meeting with James
neurologists who informed
them of James’ perfect match
for kidney donation, the
parents are now left to decide
whether to go on with the
donation or to put their faith in
God one more time.
 James had the right to receive
dialysis services during his
first visit in order to improve
his health.
 James parents had the right to
forego dialysis during their
first visit at the expense of
their son’s health
 The physician had no right to
force James’ parents to allow
him undergo the dialysis
however much it was of
importance. He had to obtain
their consent.
 By James parents agreeing to
subject Samuel to donate one
of his kidneys, will they be
violating his rights?
Evaluation