Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

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 Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences
Autonomy

* Medical indications constitute data and its interpretation concerning a patient’s physiological and physical conditions to derive clinical judgment by a physician to ensure that healing is achieved.
* The principle of Beneficence emphasizes working in a manner that encompasses compassion and kindness for the welfare and good of others (Gillon, 2018). James was placed under dialysis to curb the deterioration of his condition. His parents were also desperately looking for less tedious interventions for his illness. They had hope that faith healing would substitute the rigorous kidney dialysis procedures.
* The principle of nonmaleficence emphasizes not harming anyone. Mike feels so bad that he had prioritized faith healing over dialysis, contrary to the physician’s advice causing James’ condition to deteriorate after spiritual healing failed (Gillon, 2018). This remorse shows that the parents intended not to harm. Mike is in a dilemma whether to initiate kidney donation from Samuel, which might cause future harm, or continue trusting faith healing which might still cause more harm.

* Patient preferences influence health care approaches and choices that arise through evaluating healthcare approaches and their outcomes by the patient.
* It is enshrined in the principle of autonomy which emphasizes the recognition of a patient’s right to make decisions concerning treatments (Carr & Winslow, 2017). An instance of the principle of autonomy is depicted in this case when James’ father makes the initial decision to turn down dialysis for his son and chooses to believe that he will achieve his son’s healing through a spiritual approach. The physician does not object since James is too young to make decisions concerning the approach to achieve his healing. Therefore, his father’s decision regarding his treatment was acceptable. James’ nephrologists also leave the decision on whether or not to conduct the kidney donation to Mike and Joanne after receiving the relevant information.

Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness

* Quality of life is the perception of an individual’s life position under value systems and cultural contexts in their lives, relating them to their expectations, goals, concerns, and standards. The ultimate goal of quality life is to have good health, emotional stability, and physical wellness.
* The principle of Beneficence may enhance the good quality of life for patients and others. As indicated in the case, the physician initially suggested that James be subjected to kidney dialysis to relieve his ailment and enhance his quality of life. The principle of nonmaleficence in enhancing the quality of life for James is evident through the quest by his family, close friends, church members, and the nephrologist to seek a suitable kidney for James (Schimmoeller, 2020). A successful kidney transplant would eliminate the tedious dialysis process and make James enjoy life more, therefore an ideal intervention procedure. The principle of autonomy can also enhance the quality of life, as was Mike’s wish for his son to avoid kidney dialysis by trusting faith healing which would be less invasive and tedious. The other option is deciding whether James will undergo a kidney transplant (Carr & Winslow, 2017).

* Contextual features encompass social, legal, and family contexts that influenc...