Case Study: Applying the Four Principles in Biomedical Ethics

This case study examines the application of the four principles of biomedical ethics – beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice – within a healthcare context, specifically addressing a scenario involving a child patient and their parents' differing views on treatment. The assignment requires completing a chart analyzing the case through the lens of these principles, gathering relevant medical information, patient preferences, and contextual features. Furthermore, the assignment evaluates how these principles align with a Christian worldview, exploring which principle is most pressing and how the principles might be prioritized. The student's response highlights the significance of beneficence in the Christian perspective, emphasizing the importance of acting in the best interests of the patient while also acknowledging the role of faith and prayer in the decision-making process. The assignment also ranks the four principles from a Christian viewpoint and explains the rationale behind the prioritization of these principles. The references provided support the analysis and understanding of the ethical considerations involved.

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
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
best interest of their son regardless of James' medical
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
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.

CASE STUDY APPLYING THE FOUR PRINCIPE 4
condition worsened. Therefore the parents should act with the
best interest of their son in mind and consent to their son
undergoing kidney transplant to handle the state effectively.
donation.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

CASE STUDY APPLYING THE FOUR PRINCIPE 5
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how principlism 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)
In a Christian worldview, beneficence is the most pressing principle (Sanders, 2015). In this
case, Mike and Joanne are acting in the best interest of James. The parents are highly reliant of
healing of their son through faith and prayers. Due to their faith inclination, it is evident that
Mike and Joanne prefer prayers instead of treatment through the medical procedures identified
by physicians. From an ethical viewpoint, the parents cannot be blamed for their son's
deteriorating health condition since by praying for their son's recovery is an act of good faith.
Even as the parents are vigilant in their faith inclination, they should have allowed James to
undergo dialysis since the treatment offered by the doctor helped in quick recovery. Mike and
Joanne should have allowed medical practitioners to treat their son by giving them the freedom
to do their best to improve their son's medical condition. According to Christianity, diseases
exist as a result of God's temptations while in others; it is a punishment for sins committed by
humanity (Searight, 2019). James' parents view sickness as a God's test of their faith and to
show their trust and faith in God. The parents are reluctant to let their son undergo through
medical procedures.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

CASE STUDY APPLYING THE FOUR PRINCIPE 6
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 ranking of the four principles according to a Christian world view can be outlined as
follows beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, fairness, and autonomy. The ranking,
according to Christians, parents show care and love to their child, which is demonstrated by
acting in the best interests of the children, based on the autonomy principle (Leung &
Gomersall, 2016:Searight, 2019). The parents should ensure that the decisions they make do
not bring any harm to their children based on the non-maleficence principle. Christians
should enforce justice and fairness in all their experiences and encounters, even as they lay
their faith in God. Finally, Christians should allow every individual to indicate their thought
about various decisions that may affect a person's health based on the autonomy principle.
This is because every individual has a right to freedom of making their own decision
(Searight, 2019). Through this ranking, even as the Christians remain inclined to their
religious beliefs, they should also seek the help of the medical practitioners and not just
believe blindly without taking action. Christians should seek medical help and pray that the
patients will be healed through Gods power, by allowing the doctors to use their knowledge
and skills to treat the condition at hand (Leung & Gomersall, 2016).
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

CASE STUDY APPLYING THE FOUR PRINCIPE 7
References:
Koepsell, D. (2017). Autonomy, Dignity, Beneficence, and Justice. In Scientific Integrity and
Research Ethics (pp. 61-71). Springer, Cham.
Leung, C. C., & Gomersall, C. D. (2016). Intensive care unit triage. Quality Management in
Intensive Care: A practical Guide, 77-84.
Polzer Casarez, R. L., & Engebretson, J. C. (2012). Ethical issues of incorporating spiritual care
into clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(15‐16), 2099-2107.
Rusthoven, J. J. (2014). Covenantal biomedical ethics for contemporary medicine: An
alternative to principles-based ethics. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Sanders, A. D. (2015). When Beneficence Confronts Non-Maleficence: Reconciling the
Bioethical Challenges of Doing Good and Avoiding Harm in Risk
Communication (Doctoral dissertation, Duke University).
Searight, H. R. (2019). Ethical Theories Applied to End-of-Life Medical Care. In Ethical
Challenges in Multi-Cultural Patient Care (pp. 15-27). Springer, Cham.
©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.