Case Study: Healing and Autonomy
Introduction
In Christianity, there is a need to create a balance amid both spiritual and bodily existence. It is universally believed that placing faith in God is associated with desirable and abundant impacts unlike believing in human abilities. In this context, Christians are obligated to trust and abide by God’s rules while their control their lives. It is essential to support ethics in decision making directions for both settling in the most suitable healthcare choices (Bruning, & Baghurst, 2013. Ethics can best be described as the act of choosing the right and fruitful deed and this in Christianity involves the application of biblical teaching in decision making (Bruning, & Baghurst, 2013). Joanne and Mike as Christians are necessitated to make crucial choices in regard to the health of James something that necessitates a balanced assessment of both Christian values and ethics.
Pressing Issues in the Case
There are several pressing issues that are present in the case which under the perspective of a Christian are moral and ethical. The prime ethical dilemma involves making an actual decision on the most suitable treatment method that the parents should opt for the child’s treatment. Based on the complication of the infection the child has developed kidney issues. Given that foregoing dialysis as suggested by medical results led to the worsening of the child’s condition the ethical issue is whether the belief in God’s ailments healing over medical suggestions is moral. As Christian’s parents similarly to most other Christians they depend on God’s guidance in making the most suitable choices which seem inappropriate based on the detrimental effect that the option has caused (Devettere, 2016). In this case, the decision can be categorized as unethical because it resulted in endangering the child’s life who in the case depends on the parent’s decisions.
The principle of goodness is also an issue from the case. The doctor is obligated to offer detailed information regarding the available options while describing the associated benefits and threats. This helps in creating awareness of the entire situation while respecting their autonomy and treatment decisions. Autonomy is the standards that necessitate respecting the decision abilities of others (Devettere, 2016). The right led to the parents placing their child under the healing faith in the quest of creating wellness for him. This in most cases is the most appropriate alternative but contrary to their anticipation it harms him.
Should the Physician Allow Mike to Continue Making Decisions?
Mike made an inappropriate decision by refusing the proposed medical treatment for James, which was driven by his religious belief and mystical healing. This case is a matter of either saving the life of the child or any delays will lead to death. It is, therefore, suggested that the health and sovereignty of the child who would not wish to die or suffer to be guarded. I do not believe that Mike should be exempted from making the decision given that he wants well for James. Physicians should, therefore, try to inform him of the relation between his faith and treatment (Daly, Speedy & Jackson, 2010). In that by letting him understand that it is through treatment and upholding faith that the healing miracle will occur it is apparent that he will consider the option. However, further refusal should not be accepted given that the life and health wellness is dependent on the choices to be made.
Today, spirituality is considered to be a significant portion of being human. Spirituality is related to the individual’s capability for self-governance in every day’s operation which in turn offers satisfaction and life’s superiority. Hence, if the Christian’s holiness depends on their experiences that are acquired in daily operations this implies that the holiness entails medical as well as scientific experiences. Patient’s autonomy generally incorporates the informed options of all the knowledgeable individual’s (Daly, Speedy & Jackson, 2010). This suits the case of Mike where he is aware of the options and he is responsible for making choices that suit his son’s treatment. The autonomy gives permission to an individual in among decisions to be considered by medics and thus the developed decisions are respected and physicians cannot operate on this principle.
Treatment Refusal, Patient Autonomy, and Organ Donation
In reference to the case, the refusal of the dialysis option in order to acquire spiritual healing is a representation of autonomy. However, it is the duty of the physicians to offer information regarding the probable risks for the medical refusal. In addition, the autonomy was respected given that it was the choice they made despite the knowledge of the potent effects. Thus, in relation to Christian beliefs, there are viable options in which James can acquire treatment. It would be against Christian’s standards to refusal treatment in this case given that it is the only assured strategy through which James can acquire wellness. As parents, they have the autonomy of either that they make the most suitable choices and trust that God will perform healing on their son. It is unethical to just let an individual die or suffer when there are viable options (Devettere, 2016).
Christian Thought about Sickness and Health and What Mike Should Do
Christian’s point of view in relation to sickness and fitness in health is usually variable based on the evaluation by physicians. It is apparent from the case that the parent applied their Christian based views. However, it is good to note that Christian views differ given that the religion is an incorporation of diverse denominations. In this context, every denomination in Christianity owns a differentiated perspective in regard to health. Sickness to some Christians is perceived as a faith trial while others believe it is a penalty for the wrong deeds performed previously (Ladin, 2016). For others like Mike and his wife weakness is an evaluation or test of one’s faith. They, therefore, sought for the most appropriate treatment alternative. In this case based on Christian beliefs, mike and his wife should believe that doctors were sent by God and the prime healer to offer assistance directly in eliminating the ailment. Therefore, in Christianity, this can be deemed as a condition that disturbs the standard body functionality which requires medical treatment.
Mike together with his wife as the decision makers should uphold their faith, of considering God as their healer but also allow medics to try all the possible options in ensuring that their son acquires the best health. Upholding their faith should be incorporated by allowing the recommended treatment to be utilized while praying for the healing miracle to occur through the efforts and operations of the doctors (Ladin, 2016). This is based on the Christian notion that God offers assistance to those that play part in helping themselves and in this nature, the only help that they can offer to their son is to allow him to acquire medical treatment given that the failure will result in death. The most appropriate way through which he can reason his trust in God and James treatment is by believing on the medical treatments.
References
Bruning, P., & Baghurst, T. (2013). Improving Ethical Decision Making in Health Care Leadership. Bus Eco J 4:e101. doi:10.4172/2151-6219.1000e101
Daly, J., Speedy, S., & Jackson, D. (2010). Contexts of nursing: An introduction. Sydney: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier Australia.
Devettere, R. J. (2016). Practical decision making in health care ethics: Cases, concepts, and virtue of prudence. Georgetown University.
Ladin, K. (2016). Organ Donation as a Collective Action Problem: Ethical Considerations and Implications for Practice. AMA Journal of Ethics, Volume 18, (Number 2). Retrieved from http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2016/02/msoc1-1602.html
