The concept of patient autonomy is a unique principle that guides physicians to make informed decisions and support the delivery of high-quality medical services. The current case presents James as a patient suffering from acute glomerulonephritis. This life-threatening medical condition is capable of affecting the health experiences of the patient. Mike has been making irrational decisions that are capable of harming James. This kind of scenario is complicated since there are two issues at play: religious faith and scientific intervention. The rationale behind this argument is that the physician should consider the most appropriate decision that is capable of meeting James’ medical demands (Igboin, 2015). He should do so by putting the major principles of care delivery, such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, fairness, and justice into consideration.
Focusing on the Christian worldview, the doctor will guide Mike and sensitize him about the role of medical intervention towards supporting God’s intention for a happier world. This knowledge will encourage the professional to engage the parent, learn more about the anticipated health outcomes, and explain why an effective care delivery model will bring positive results (Carlin, 2019). The move to allow him to make such harmful decisions could affect James’ overall health experiences. The resolution will respect the idea of patient autonomy since the intended result is to deliver positive medical outcomes. The healing recorded from the proposed kidney transplant will support the fact the doctor’s decision will be just, fair, and capable of not harming the patient.
Christians: Sickness and Health
Christians develop unique thoughts and views about health and sickness. Specifically, they believe that diseases are a form of punishment intended to take them closer to their righteous ways. This knowledge explains why they will pray for intervention and rely on their faith to receive the intended healing. Medical professionals should be aware of this kind of thought and focus on the best ways to improve patients’ health experiences (Igboin, 2015). Good health is a blessing from God and would be available to those who follow His commandments and do what is righteous.
Many Christians allow medical interventions in the course of their lives since they believe that professionals providing such services are a gift from God. They embrace the use of medications and therapies to record positive health experiences. However, some believers do not allow certain invasive techniques, such as organ transplants and blood donation (Loue, 2020). Some individuals agree with their medical experts to intervene to ensure that positive health outcomes are recorded. Physicians should be aware of these divergent views if they want to develop personalized care delivery and treatment models for their respective patients.
In this scenario, there is a need for Mike to strike a genuine balance between his religious beliefs and the realities James is going through as a patient. He will consider this knowledge to allow the involved physician to intervene and help protect James’ life. Such an approach will support the patient’s experiences and put an end to his suffering. The outstanding observation is that the professional has presented a genuine suggestion that is capable of supporting James’ medical experience (Igboin, 2015). This knowledge explains why Mike should support such an idea.
The nature of this case indicates that total exclusion of an effective medical approach will not help James. Instead, he will continue to suffer and eventually die prematurely despite the existence of an evidence-based medical process. Therefore, Mike should allow the idea of medical treatment since it will be by the concept of nonmaleficence. The inclusion of intervention will allow the physician to offer personalized support and guidance (Carlin, 2019). Mike will also get a new opportunity to pray and ask God to intervene. Such initiative will ensure that the entire process is effective and capable of providing the intended healing. Therefore, this decision will hone the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in the care of James.
Spiritual Needs Assessment
A spiritual needs assessment is essential since it will allow Mike to learn more about the connection between faith and healing. He will explore some of the options that are acceptable in the medical world while fulfilling the goals of a better world. The medical professional will explain how he will be willing to remain involved, provide the relevant emotional support, and encourage members of the family to be part of the treatment process (Igboin, 2015). This form of assessment will outline additional religious practices that are acceptable and capable of transforming the overall healing process.
With the acquired knowledge, Mike will find it easier to appreciate the medical intervention and combine it with prayers. The involvement of family members and other practitioners will support the delivery of culturally competent care. The participants will appreciate the role of bioethics and why doctors are always on the frontline to safeguard life. This kind of understanding will allow the stakeholders to think from the same page and consider the best approaches to support James’ medical demands (Carlin, 2019). This case, therefore, provides an evidence-based model for guiding individuals when religious and medical expectations appear to conflict and eventually support the delivery of positive health outcomes.
Carlin, N. (2019). Pastoral aesthetics: A theological perspective on principlist bioethics. Oxford University Press.
Igboin, B. (2015). Spirituality and medical practice: A Christian perspective. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 12(4), 199-206. Web.
Loue, S. (2020). Case studies in society, religion, and bioethics. Springer.