Benchmark patient's spiritual needs case analysis

Benchmark - Patient's Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

Benchmark - Patient's Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis
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.

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.

RUBRIC

Attempt Start Date: 15-Jul-2019 at 12:00:00 AM

Due Date: 21-Jul-2019 at 11:59:59 PM

Maximum Points: 200.0

Benchmark - Patient's Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis - Rubric
No of Criteria: 8 Achievement Levels: 5CriteriaAchievement LevelsDescriptionPercentageUnsatisfactory0.00 %Less than Satisfactory65.00 %Satisfactory75.00 %Good85.00 %Excellent100.00 %Content 70.0 Decision-Making and Principle of Autonomy20.0Decisions 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 Nonmaleficence20.0Decisions 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)30.0How 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 Purpose7.0Paper 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 Construction8.0Statement 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)5.0Surface 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)5.0Template 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)5.0Sources 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 Percentage 100

Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.

Medical Indications

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences

Autonomy

To help James from the high blood pressure and fluid buildup, immediate dialysis is required. The condition of James has worsened when he missed dialysis. The only thing that can save him is a kidney transplant and the matching donor is his twin brother, Samuel. Even though a kidney transplant can save the life of James, it may as well pose a significant threat to Samuel through surgery and the recovery process.

The physician respected the autonomy of the parents in using their belief in God and faith that through a religious service, their son’s health condition can be restored. The parents are faced with the possibility of having Samuel donate his kidney to James. Mike seems to struggle with this reality and believes in the possibility of a miracle happening since it is a test of true faith.

Respect for autonomy was the primary principle used in this case. The physician respected the strong belief and faith of the parents in God and gave them an opportunity to make a decision.

Quality of Life

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features

Justice and Fairness

Medical treatment will benefit James by restoring his kidney functioning and save his life. But there may be temporary discomfort resulting from the dialysis. It is important for the renal functioning of James to go back to normal but he did not get the treatment due to autonomy and the decision made by the parents to depend on their faith and belief in God. The condition of James has deteriorated and he now requires a kidney transplant. He will need kidney dialyses that can impact his quality of life because this procedure is physically draining since one needs to go through this procedure, normally thrice a week. He must have a kidney transplant or will lose his life. Getting a kidney transplant will improve James’ quality of life but his brother will experience a decline in functioning if surgery is done with regard to the recovery process. And in case he loses the one kidney he has, he would too require a transplant. Donating his kidney would save his twin brother’s life; as a result, it would improve their relationship and their lives because at least he would have a brother. Failure to donate his kidney would lead James to death and Samuel would live with lifetime guilt for not saving his brother’s life. Non-maleficence is indicated when Mike struggles with the idea of why he has to put Samuel through this situation.

James’ parents (Mike and Joanne) are faced with the decision of whether to allow Samuel donate his kidney to save James’s life. Some people could argue that it may not be Mike and Joanne’s decision but Samuel’s. Considering the close relationship between the twin brothers, it may be better for Samuel to donate his kidney rather than losing his brother. I believe that it is their choice to make. But the thoughts and beliefs of Mike are taking the center stage, seemingly putting the life of James solely on his faith. Mike wonders whether it is just to put Samuel through the process of surgery and the risk of remaining with one kidney. However, little is seen regarding the stance of Joanne. It may be argued that she is not included in decision making.

©2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how principlism would be applied:

In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, which of the four principles is most pressing in this case? Explain why. (45 points)

From a Christian Worldview, I believe that the principle of autonomy is the most pressing. Autonomy refers to the ability of patients to make their own decisions regarding their health and medical treatments. In this case, autonomy is seen where Mike decides to forgo temporary dialysis for their son and turn to faith healing service. The parents acted autonomously for their son and placed the health of their son on the fate of their faith. When James condition worsens, his father tends to struggles with the idea of allowing his son through the medical procedure of donating a kidney. He hopes that his faith in God will change the situation.

Patient autonomy is a significant factor in medical decisions. This principle requires respect for the decision making abilities of the autonomous people (Beauchamp & Childress, 2014). In this case, the attending physician held a discussion with the mother regarding the diagnosis, treatment and risk of treatment and the risk without treatment. Mike informed the physician of their decision of not attending the dialysis for some time as they seek God’s healing. They didn’t want to subject their son to multiple cases of dialysis as they believed that their faith in God could do miracles and relieve their son. In a situation where the associated party is a child, the parent assumes the autonomy of making choices for medical treatment.

In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian rank the priority of the four principles? Explain why. (45 points)

Christians will tend to rank to rank the priorities based on their faith. They may rank them as 1) Autonomy; 2) Nonmaleficence; 3) Beneficence; and 4) Justice.

Respect is a key aspect in the Christian faith and the relationship between God and humans. When God created man, he gave him the authority to make his own decisions. As a Christian physician, he is expected to inform and respect the choices of the parents. Under the laws of bioethics, patients have the power to decide the mode of treatment they want and have a right to refuse certain treatments, surgeries, or medications (Tom & James, 2014). The decision may not be in the best interest of the patient, but it is something that medical practitioners must respect.

The principle of non-maleficence stipulates that human subjects should not be harmed. This means that nursing practitioners must make the best medical decisions and adhere to the medical rules and regulations and ethics to ensure that patients are safe. The third is the principle of beneficence which is an ethical perspective that involves promoting all that is good. It entails trying to improve the health condition of the patients. The principle of justice campaigns for the equal distribution of benefits and risks of research (Beauchamp & Childress, 2014). In the selection of research subjects both socially and ethically, there must be fair procedures and outcomes.

In the context of Christian biblical narrative, I believe that the order of these principles should appear just as they are. Respect for autonomy should appear ahead of other principles. Allowing patients to take part in their care and make their own medical choices is crucial. This gives room for an equal diplomatic approach to the provision of healthcare. Respect for autonomy would be considered first because based on the Christian biblical story of creation, fall, and redemption of man, God allowed us to be on earth and make a choice between the right and wrong. Even though God wants us to choose the right, He gives us the room to choose the path we want to take in life.

References:
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2014). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tom L. & James F. (2014) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 417.

Reilly, D. (2006, Fall). Dr. Dan Reilly Twitter Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Vimeo Following Christ's example, I seek to serve those whose path crosses mine. Retrieved July, 2019, from http://danreilly.ca/