In addition to the topic study materials, use the chart you completed and questions you answered in the Topic 3 about “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” as the basis for your responses in this assignment.

Answer the following questions about a patient’s spiritual needs in light of the Christian worldview.

  1. In 200-250 words, respond to the following: Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James, or would that mean a disrespect of a patient’s autonomy? Explain your rationale.
  2. In 400-500 words, respond to the following: How ought the Christian think about sickness and health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James in relation to what is truly honoring the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in James’s care?
  3. In 200-250 words, respond to the following: How would a spiritual needs assessment help the physician assist Mike determine appropriate interventions for James and for his family or others involved in his care?

Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric (IN ATTACHMENTS). Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

This benchmark assignment assesses the following competencies:

BS Nursing (RN to BSN)

5.2: Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
PHI-413V PHI-413V-O502 Benchmark – Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis 200.0
Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less than Satisfactory (65.00%) Satisfactory (75.00%) Good (85.00%) Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 70.0%
Decision-Making and Principle of Autonomy 20.0% Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are not analyzed according to the principle of autonomy. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed from both perspectives, but the analysis according to the principle of autonomy is unclear. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed from both perspectives, but the analysis according to the principle of autonomy lack details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed from both perspectives with details according to the principle of autonomy. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed from both perspectives with a deep understanding of the complexity of the principle of autonomy. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
Decision-Making, Christian Perspective, and the Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence 20.0% Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are not analyzed according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, but the analysis is unclear. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence but lacks details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are clearly analyzed with details according to the Christian perspective and the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. Decisions that need to be made by the physician and the father are analyzed with deep understanding of the complexity of the Christian perspective, as well as with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
Spiritual Needs Assessment and Intervention (CoNHCP 5.2) 30.0% How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is not analyzed. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is analyzed, but unclear. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed but lacks details. Analysis is not supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed with details. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses. How a spiritual needs assessment would help the physician assist the father determine appropriate interventions for his son, his family, or others involved in the care of his son is clearly analyzed with a deep understanding of the connection between a spiritual needs assessment and providing appropriate interventions. Analysis is supported by the case study, topic study materials, or Topic 3 assignment responses.
Organization, Effectiveness, and Format 30.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Total Weightage 100%Applying the Four Principles: Case Study

Part A

Medical Indications

Beneficence and Non-maleficence

Patient Preferences

Autonomy

It implies working for the best interest of the receiver of the action. James parents wanted the best for him. They made decisions to best interest of James.

· James had elevated blood pressure which required temporary dialysis.

· The physician suggested immediate dialysis to save James.

· James would require kidney transplant within a year or he will die.

James’ parents made the decision for James because he was a minor. He could however, be involved in the decision-making process.

· Joanne and Mike inform the physician they are skipping the dialysis and place their faith in God. They decide to take James to faith and healing service.

· They return a week later when faith failed to heal James.

· Mike and Joanne turned to a nephrologist.

· Mike wonders whether to go take one kidney from Samuel or wait for a miracle.

Quality of Life

Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features

Justice and Fairness

James condition was worse but after undergoing dialysis he improved.

· Mike and Joanne decide to forego the dialysis and instead look for a solution elsewhere.

· Mike and Joanne decide to donate one of their won kidneys to James.

The legal, social and familial setting enabled them make decisions regarding the health situation of James.

· Physician let Mike and James decided what was to be done with James.

· Mike is in a dilemma whether to he should have his other son Samuel lose a kidney for James.

Part B

Question 1

The Beneficence principle is the most pressing according to the Christianity view of the global issues. The principle matters because parents will tend to act with the best intentions about their children. (Beever, & Brightman, 2016). Whenever Mike and Joanne decided on their son’s condition, it was the best interest according to them. They do not trust the dialysis, and they have high hopes their son will be healed through prayers and by believing in God. They prefer prayers to treatment because their beliefs show them that their son will be healed through prayers. We cannot blame Mike and Joanne, for taking this direction, even though their son’s condition continues to deteriorate. The parents acted in good faith. When they noticed their son’s condition is not improving, they decided to take him back to the hospital, which is a good thing. Beneficence is essential to Christians because they believe that there is an order to creation which brings peace. Since Mike and Joanne were the patients’ advocate, they made a decision by sticking to their spiritual beliefs in the hope that the decision will pay off. Even though it didn’t pay off, nobody can fault their choice. In the current world, Christians are faced with hard decisions, and the choices they make in these decisions are expected to reflect their Christianity beliefs.

Question 2

Christians rank the four principles such that Beneficence comes first. The second principle is non-maleficence; then justice and fairness come in third. The last principle based on Christianity beliefs autonomy. (Gillon, 2018). Beneficence is ranked the first because, according to Christianity views, parents are supposed to love their children and act in their best interests. In our case study, it is Beneficence that proved how Mike and Joanne care for their sons what they thought the best practice was concerning their health situations. Only they cared about their sons, and they had to influence what happens to them. The principle of non-maleficence, which comes second shows that parents need to ensure that no matter what happens, they should not put their children to harm. It relates to everyone, not just parent. We should not harm those whom we care for. The third principle is justice and fairness. Christians are expected to observe justice and fairness in all their endeavours for a just world. Lastly, Christians need to give others the freedom of making decisions that are best suited for them. This relates to the principle of autonomy. The privilege of making decisions help to promote equity in the world. Mike and Joanne had the freedom of making decisions for themselves.

References

Gillon, R. (2018). Principlism, virtuism, and the spirit of oneness. In Healthcare Ethics, Law and Professionalism (pp. 45-59). Routledge.

Beever, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2016). Reflexive principlism as an effective approach for developing ethical reasoning in engineering. Science and engineering ethics22(1), 275-291.

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.