Download Running head: CASE STUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS and more Study notes Nursing in PDF only on Docsity! Running head: CASE STUDY ON BIOMEDICAL ETHICS 1 Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative Grand Canyon University: PHI-413V The purpose of this paper is to analyze principalism and explain the meaning of the four principle approach autonomy, nonmaleficenece, beneficence and justice according to this author's understanding then, each principle will be apply to the case study "Healing and Autonomy" provided by Grand Canyon University. According to Grand Canyon University (n.d, p.1) lecture notes for week 3 respect for autonomy is "A principle that requires respect for the decision making capacities of autonomous persons" as a nurse I understand that allowing patients to make their own decisions when capable is crucial for their recovery, it provides them with confidence and the dignity they deserve. According to the same notes nonmaleficence is "a principle requiring that people not cause harm to others" (n.d, p.1) as nurses we have the great responsibility to care for our patient's lives and to not cause harm, this means physical and emotional harm, patients have the right to know what they are at risk for. Beneficence; as health care providers we are required to provide equal benefits to all people not matter the cost, we are require to weigh the benefits gains risk and make decisions on what benefits patients the most. The last principal is justice, this principle requires health providers to provide with fair distribution of benefits regardless of people's race, skin color, or socioeconomically status. Autonomy: In this case, Mike and Joanne found out that their son James had kidney failure secondary to glomerulonephritis. They were aware that his condition was acute enough to require immediate care and even though the attending physician suggested immediate dialysis they decided to skip the dialysis, and take James to a faith healing service. Mike and Joana promised to go back to the hospital later the week which they did and by that time James' condition had deteriorated. The autonomy of the parents was respected, they were allowed to choose what they thought was better for their son James and even though this put James' life in jeopardy they had the right to choose. Beneficence: The attending physician believed that James required immediate dialysis to prevent further kidney injury. Mike and Joanne thought that they needed to be faithful and take their son to the healing service to be cure. They had seen friends get better after attending one of this services, they thought that by taking James they would show faith in God and God would heal their son so that he would not need dialysis at all. Both parties, the attending physician and the parents disagreed on what benefits James the most, but is clear that both parties think they know what is best for James. Who is right? both could have been right but, at the end of the case study we find that the Dr. was right and James needed dialysis at that moment. Nonmaleficence: The attending physician has a moral duty to promote James health and he knows that is imperative for him to get dialysis to help his kidney restore function, the physician does not want to inflict harm or suffering on James but he understands that this is
