Intervention and Ethical Decision-Making Assignment Paper

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.
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.
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?
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. 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.  Intervention and Ethical Decision-Making Assignment Paper
Benchmark Information
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:
BS in Health Sciences 1.2; BS Nursing (RN to BSN ) 5.2
Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Intervention and Ethical Decision-Making

Part 1.

The question about whether or not the physical should allow Mike to continue making decisions that appear harmful and irrational to James hinges on patient autonomy. There are four considerations that the physician must make in such as case. Firstly, autonomy is concerned with self-determination in decision-making with a focus on the capacity to acquire and evaluate the available relevant information in exploring the options that translate into decisions. Mike appears not to have the relevant information on James’ condition and is consequently unable to make the right decisions. The physician should address this aspect by providing all the information that would help with making decisions to include prognosis and treatment options as well as implications for treatment delays. Secondly, the capacity to make decisions must be evaluated. Mike appears to not be in any capacity to make decisions. He is unable to fully deliberate his options resulting in decisions that appear rational to him but irrational to others. The physician should address this concern by engaging Mike in a consultative forum where he is guided to make decisions without negatively affecting his dignity. Thirdly, autonomy is limited to the extent of harm. Any decision that appears to harm the patient is grounds enough for autonomy to be withdrawn. This is especially so if the harm is grave with possible irreparable consequences. Finally, any decision that violates the physician’s medical conscience should be ignored. Given these four considerations, the physician should withdraw Mike’s right to continue making decisions for Mike’s care (Foster, 2010; Wancata & Henshaw, 2016).

Part 2.

The Christian doctrine encourages humans to perceive sickness and health as transient states that test their faith and fulfil God’s word. The Book of Genesis presents the story of creation in which health and sickness were first introduced. God created Adam and Eve, giving them health. However, they sinned and were punished with sickness. The punishment extends to all their descendants. As such, experiencing sickness and health is a fulfilment of God’s word directed at all humans who descended from Adam and Eve.

Christianity has always been accepting of medical intervention. Jesus Christ himself was considered as a physician who healed a lot of sick people. Christ mentions that while the healthy do not need medical care, the sick need medical care from a physician. This is an affirmation of the medical professional (Mathew 9:12, NIV). Although Christianity is accepting of medical intervention, there are ethical scruples that must not be violated. Medical care should only be accepted to the extent that it does not violate other commandments presented in the Bible. For instance, killing a healthy person to harvest organs that save the life of a sick person would not be acceptable to Christians as it violates the commandment against killing. Overall, medical intervention that is based on supported and reasonable evidence would be acceptable to Christians only if it does not violate any other of God’s commandments (Strand & Cole, 2014).

As a Christian, Mike should allow James to seek treatment. The Bible acknowledges medical professions are acceptable, mentioning that those who are sick should seek treatment from a physician (Strand & Cole, 2014). James is sick and should seek treatment from a physician. There are many instances in the Bible where God instructs that his people should seek treatment. For instance, Prophet Isaiah is instructed to prescribe medicine to treat a boil (Isaiah 38:12, NIV). Given this awareness, Mike should allow James to seek medical treatment from a physician.

The principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence have important implications for the case. The principle of beneficence is focused on helping others while the principle of nonmaleficence warns against doing harm. Mike should understand that his decisions have important implications. Refusing to allow James to receive treatment would cause Mike to violate the two principles as he would not be helping James and would instead be perceived as doing harm. The two principles demand that Mike allow James to seek medical treatment (Cherry, 2019).

Part 3.

Medical personnel conduct a spiritual needs assessment as a tool for creating the appropriate treatment plan. The assessment helps the physician to communicate with the patients and family members. Irrespective of Mike’s faith, his beliefs cannot be ignored. Through listening to what he has to say and understanding his beliefs, the physician would create the perception of caring for the family and recognizing their spiritual dimension. In addition, the conversation would help with understanding the treatment expectations. This information helps the physician to present information that is relevant to the family when making health care decisions. Besides that, the assessment would help the physician to offer faith-specific support and resolve conflicts between religion and health care. For instance, Mike initially refused to allow James to receive treatment and mentioned that God would health him. The delay caused James’ situation to deteriorate. A spiritual needs assessment would have helped in averting this situation through identifying the specific support that Mike needs and information that would help in making the right health care decisions for James. Also, the spiritual needs assessment would ensure that James is supported in his decisions so that he does not experience psychological guilt should the outcomes turn unfavorable. Overall, understanding James spirituality helps the physician to improve understanding of coping mechanism, identify social support, identify referral needs (such as visit by a priest), and open discussions about medical care (Isaac, Hay & Lubetkin, 2016; Saguil & Phelps, 2012).

References

Cherry, M. (2019). Bioethics without God: The Transformation of Medicine within a Fully Secular Culture. Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 25(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cby015

Foster, C. (2010). Autonomy should chair, not rule. The Art of Medicine, 375(9712), 368-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60156-0

Isaac, K., Hay, J. & Lubetkin, E. (2016). Incorporating Spirituality in Primary Care. J Relig Health, 55(3), 1065-1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-016-0190-2

Saguil, A. & Phelps, K. (2012). The Spiritual Assessment. American Family Physician, 86(6), 546-550. https://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0915/p546.html

Strand, M. & Cole, A. (2014). Framing the Role of the Faith Community in Global Health. Christian Journal for Global Health. Christian Journal for Global Health, 1(2), 7-15. https://journal.cjgh.org/index.php/cjgh/article/view/19/109

Wancata, L. & Hinshaw, D. (2016). Rethinking autonomy: decision making between patient and surgeon in advanced illnesses. Annals of Translational Medicine, 4(4), 77. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2016.01.36  .Intervention and Ethical Decision-Making Assignment Paper