PHI-413V - Ethics and Spirituality: Healing and Autonomy Case Study

This assignment analyzes the 'Healing and Autonomy' case study, focusing on ethical principles within healthcare. It applies the four principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, examining their implications within the context of a Christian worldview. Part 1 involves organizing data from the case study according to these principles, while Part 2 evaluates the priority and application of these principles from a Christian perspective, specifically addressing the tension between spiritual healing and medical interventions. The assignment also explores how a Christian might rank the priority of the four principles, considering the patient's autonomy, the benefits of treatment, and the ethical considerations of not causing harm. The case study highlights the complexities of medical decision-making when faith and healthcare intersect.

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 utilizing 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
The beneficence and non-maleficence principle mainly reflects
the concept that all decisions taken by the health care
administrator must ensure that it is not harming any people or
society (Horne, 2016). All procedures and treatment related to a
particular disease must be conducted to provide beneficial
results to the patients. The medical provider must have
adequate skills and knowledge to ensure that they can offer the
best medical assistance to the individual and can achieve
successful results. They must make sure that whatever the
decision they are taking for any individual should not harm
society or any other individual. In the case study, based on
healing and autonomy, the medical providers are suggesting
various ways to treat the patient and trying to make aware the
couple about the repercussions that can be faced by their son if
treatment is not given within the speculated time. However,
Mike is not ready to understand any aspect and is refusing for
the dialysis. The couple is entirely depending on the spiritual
healing process and neglecting all the medical
recommendations. Even though it is the responsibility of the
physician to inform them about specific consequences that can
emerge if timely treatment is not given to their child, but it is
also necessary that medical providers need to work as per the
ethics of the health care. They cannot force their decision on
any individual patient.
The autonomy principle refers to a patient's decision about
whether to undergo a particular treatment process or not
(Fourie, 2015). Even if the medical administrator believes
that the selected decision will be best for the patient, it
entirely the patient call whether to accept the decision made
by the medical advisor based on their values or beliefs
(Falahati, 2014). In the given case study related to healing
and autonomy, Joanne and Mike are practicing autonomy and
not letting the physician to make the necessary dialysis
required for their son. The physicians are well aware that
James is having kidney issues and needs a kidney transplant
as soon as possible. However, the medical advisor is not able
to convince the patient parents for the treatment procedure as
Joanne and Mike are showing great belief in the spiritual
healing process. The couple fails to understand that God
helps the one who has helped themselves. Even after
knowing specific consequences for not doing the kidney
transplant, the couple is not ready to take the help of the
medical assistance for their child. The nephrologists are well
aware that James will have to suffer significant loss for his
parent’s decision; however, it is against the ethics of the
medical providers to force anyone for medical treatment.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Quality of Life
Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Autonomy
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness
If beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy are taken into
consideration for analyzing the case of healing and autonomy,
then there are various aspects by which clarity can be obtained
on principles related to maintaining ethics in health care
(Güllüce, Özer & Erkiliç, 2015). If both beneficence and non-
maleficence are analyzed concerning the case, then the
physicians are trying to ensure that James will be given
accurate and adequate health care services to avoid any further
complications because of the health issue. However, it is the
couple to decide whether to go for the necessary dialysis
process or not (Lee, 2017). The medical provider has suggested
a treatment procedure that will be better for the patient's health,
and even there is no harm to any other person or society. The
couple's decision will be the last, and they are not interested in
any type of dialysis process; instead, they want to focus on their
prayers, and they are expecting that by devoting to God, some
miracle will happen by which their son will recover and
becomes fine. They forget that God also send someone to help
the needy ones, and in this case, medical providers are the
person who can help their son to recover from the disease.
Medical providers can provide better treatment by which their
son can be saved.
Every medical decision is taken by keeping in mind all the
relevant laws and legislation Ambler, 2014). In this case, also
the health care providers have evaluated all the relevant
information has and, lastly, concludes that James
immediately needs a kidney transplant within one year or
less, and if this process is not conducted within the
speculated time, then he might lose his life. James is not
undergoing the dialysis process, and because of this failure,
the nephrologists are well aware of the consequences that
may be faced by James. In this case, the couple is not able to
make a rational decision as they are showing extreme faith in
will power of God. They depend on the spiritual healing
process. The medical decision taken will prove to be
beneficial for the patient; however, it fully the couple call to
take the end decision. Even though Christian remains
committed to their religion, but when it comes to life, they
must reason. Mike must try to understand the consequences
of the delayed treatment and should allow his son to undergo
the dialysis medical treatment and should have faith in God.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how principles would be applied:
1. In 200-250, words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, which of the
four principles is most pressing in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
The four principles of health care ethics are extremely important for providing efficient
patient care services. The work of a doctor or health care administrator is exceptionally
challenging, and the one who succeeds in performing the work with efficiency and by
maintaining all ethics or principles is highly rewarded (Barreda, Trachsel & Biller-
Andorno, 2016). In the medical field, not all the experiments and surgeries need to be
successful as individual patients have their input and occurrences to consider. According to
Christian worldwide, non-maleficence is the principle that is most pressing in the case.
Non-maleficence mainly deals with the fact that whatever the treatment is given to the
patients, it should harm the health of the patient. The practitioner's decision must be
efficient enough to obtain favourable outcomes. It is the prime responsibility of the health
care administrator to make a decision that will be beneficial for the patient as well as for
the society. The decision taken must not harm any people or society. If one decision is
taken for the benefit of an individual patient, then it is the responsibility of the practitioner
that it should not harm society (Greenhalgh et al., 2017). In this case, Mike and Joanne
depend on spiritual healing for their son without even trying out other medical alternatives.
It is evident that Christians have strong beliefs in their prayers; however, they must be
aware that God helps those who help themselves. James' parents are entirely dependent on
the spiritual healing method and showing their faith in God. However, they are not ready
to understand that their extreme belief in spiritual healing method is spreading the wrong
message in society. If everyone will depend on God and will have a mindset that prayers
will heal every disease, and there is no need of medical techniques, then it will be a
disaster for humanity.
2. In 200-250 words, answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a
Christian rank the priority of the four principles? Explain why. (45 points)
The Christians believe that the ultimate healing comes from the will of God, and by
showing faith in prayers, fasting, having faith in the anointing of oil, and many more
methods related to the preaching of God will heal a person (Mittelstadt & Floridi, 2016).
The Christians believe that the process of the anointing of oils has the power to assist a
healing process. In this case, Joanne and Mike decide to keep their faith in healing power
rather than depending on the dialysis process of their son. They thought that by adopting
the spiritual healing approach, James would recover at a faster pace. However, it turns out
to be a negative result for their son. Instead, James' health condition worsened as his
parents did not allow carrying on the dialysis process. As per the Christian worldwide,
they will rank each principle ethics in the following order. The first one will be autonomy
as it mainly deals with the rights that a patient hold while for taking all decision relating to
the treatment procedure. It entirely depends on the patients that whether they want to
undergo any treatment or not, doctors cannot pressurize them for any procedure (Anderson
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

& Anderson, 2015). The patient’s decision is the last, even if the medical providers suggest
that it will be the best treatment for the patient. The second one is beneficence, as it is
expected that health care providers will work for the benefits of the individual and will
recommend treatment with a good intention that will ensure benefits and safety for the
individual. The third is justice, it states that all medical decisions must have a sense of
fairness, and all decisions taken by medical providers must be within the purview of laws
and legislation (Beever & Morar, 2016). The last one is non-maleficence, as in the present
modern time, even after achieving great success in the medical field, the Christians depend
more upon the spiritual healing method. Non-maleficence mainly deals with the concepts
that there should not be any harm to others in society. The Christians must ensure that their
extreme belief on God is not giving any wrong message to society.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

References:
Ambler, J. (2014). When is the right time? Complex issues around withdrawing life-sustaining
treatment in children. South African Medical Journal, 104(7), 507-509.
Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (2015, April). Toward ensuring ethical behavior from
autonomous systems: a case-supported principle-based paradigm. In Workshops at the
Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Barreda, R. L., Trachsel, M., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2016). Towards a broader understanding of
agency in biomedical ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 19(3), 475-483.
Beever, J., & Morar, N. (2016). The porosity of autonomy: Social and biological constitution of
the patient in biomedicine. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(2), 34-45.
Falahati, S. (2014). What is the Scope of Autonomy in Medical Practice?. Scottish Universities
Medical Journal, 3(1).
Fourie, C. (2015). Moral distress and moral conflict in clinical ethics. Bioethics, 29(2), 91-97.
Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore
for good medical ethics. Journal of medical ethics, 41(1), 111-116.
Greenhalgh, J., Dalkin, S., Gooding, K., Gibbons, E., Wright, J., Meads, D., ... & Pawson, R.
(2017). Functionality and feedback: a Gillon, R. (2015). realist synthesis of the collation,
interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve
patient care. Health Services and Delivery Research, 5(2), 1-280.
Güllüce, A. Ç., Özer, S., & Erkiliç, E. (2015). The effect of organizational justice perception on
organizational commitment among healthcare sector employees. Journal of Business and
Management, 4(3), 16-25.
Horne, L. C. (2016). Medical need, equality, and uncertainty. Bioethics, 30(8), 588-596.
Lee, L. M. (2017). A bridge back to the future: public health ethics, bioethics, and environmental
ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(9), 5-12.
Mittelstadt, B. D., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of big data: current and foreseeable issues in
biomedical contexts. Science and engineering ethics, 22(2), 303-341.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.