Ethical Issues Which Required the Application of Both the Religious Beliefs and the Physical Sciences in Making Decisions.

The case contains ethical issues which required the application of both the religious beliefs and the physical sciences in making decisions. From the case study, one of the ethical issues that can be deduced is whether believing in healing from God over the proven and tested scientific healing is ethical. Mike and Joanne are God-fearing people who use the Bible and preachers as their guide to daily decision. Upon the illness of their son, they visited the hospital for assistance, but they reject the physician’s treatment. In most circumstances, James’s parents prefer prayers. They decide to postpone James’s dialysis, which resulted in the detrimental effect on his well-being. Another ethical issue arising from the case study is concerning the organ transplant of a kidney. It is also a controversial issue because they believe that the human body is the temple of God and should not be tampered with. James had only this option of kidney transplanted to survive, which relied on the parents again to make decision on whether it should be done or not. Therefore, in this case, James’s parents are torn between a dilemma on whether to ignore their God and save the child by allowing his gene-match brother to donate the kidney or still wait for God’s miracles. This case contains challenges to stay true to one’s spiritual beliefs to make ethical decision about one’ health.

The four box method is present in this case such as medical indications, quality of life, patient preferences, and contextual features and are significant methods in ethics. First, the medical indications are the best place to start, James is currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection. The spread of the A Streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’ condition was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. The doctors are ethically bound to discuss all the treatment options and the risks and benefits with the parents. It is the responsibility to respect the parent’s decision to disagree with the plan. The goal of the treatment is to transplant an organ from James’s twin brother and that could save his life. Since James is not old enough to be his own person, his parent has his autonomy and the parents are putting their faith in God to heal and instead of medical intervention.

Second, the patient preference is not very relevant in this case, but still present because James is eight years old, he doesn’t have capacity to decide and his state of treatment is still dependent on his parent’s decision. The patient being unduly pressured by family due to what they believe. James would want to be alive, and was not informed due to his age and the laws, James is a minor this could pass the right to his parents. As well as this, he is unable to cooperate with the physician. This case study is hard to depict on what is right or wrong for the patient who cannot decide for themselves. The conflicting issue for the two parties is that Mike, his father, has a hard decision with both of his sons and what is the Christian religion to do and what God will approve of. The physician needs to look at his own beliefs and values to understand if he can fully help and be there for James and his parents. Ultimately, Mike has paternal ethics over James, because Mike is against James’ will, and wants to wait for the miracle. This means that James’s parents allow their son to die on religion ground.

Order custom essay Ethical Issues Which Required the Application of Both the Religious Beliefs and the Physical Sciences in Making Decisions. with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Third, the quality of life is also an important point for the patient. Non-maleficence is a principle requiring that people not cause harm to others. It is imperative for James to get dialysis to help his kidney restore function. The physician does not want to inflict harm or suffering. The physician understands that this is what James needs at this point. However, the parents believe their son will be cured if they attend the faith healing service, after all they witness miracles. The physician has a duty for what is best for James and by waiting more time might make James’s kidney worse than what it is at this time. James’s parents are deliberately hurting him; with refusing treatment they are contributing in harming James’ current condition. In the end, it can hurt James and put him in more harm. At this point, James’ quality of life is low, James is not able to choose based on his interest in treatment. Although, the physician cannot make any decisions on the cause because the principle of autonomy is appraised. It allows Mike to make decision, as it is his right, but the physician still requires to advocate for the patient. James will be temporarily better after the temporary dialysis but since they have decided not to undergo complete dialysis procedures, this could cause bias based on the religious grounds. Mike puts his belief over James’ well-being that causes bias and unbalance of the situation.

Fourth, the contextual features are significant in this case because the parents face the ethical issues after the doctor’s recommendation of the need for dialysis. The parents decide to not proceed with the doctor’s recommended and take his son home to have a healing service, which leads to a rapid decline in James’s condition. This conflict of interest could act against justice because Mike’s decision is based on his culture rather than considering the deterioration of James’s health. This is emphasized more at the end where James seemed to have ignored the recommendation for kidney transplant. This issue conflicts with Mike’s perception. The healthcare provider’s duties are a conflict of interest for the sake of patient’s safety assurances and ensuring their maintenance of integrity. Mike’s decision is considered to be negligent and therefore, the physicians are not obligated completely. The right to believe should not be at any point be to the extent of threatening and endangering another one’s life. On the other hand, this ethics issue might push financial pressure toward the family, the cost during treatment could play a key role in this situation.

Overall, my point of view is that the religion plays a huge key role in biomedical ethics to find the balance to stand. I think the physician’s recommendation is the best decision to follow as well because it is ensuring James’ well-being. The physician recognizes the rights of children to live supersedes the right of their parents to free expression of religion. Across from this, Mike’s beliefs seem to not guarantee well-being, as it failed in the first place. It means that his parents allow him to die by choosing the faith, regardless of socio-economic standing. Such caring implies care for the whole person, physically, emotionally, socially and spiritually. The patient’s spiritual well-being is an integral part of health care and is a way of showing respect for the person who comes as a patient-supplicant. The medical field tries to compromise, but they won’t deny treatment that will save lives. The two fields should work mutually, even if Christianity and science are always conflicting. James’ life is more important in this case; I would choose to safe him with respect for his integrity. Faith in God will be there, but he needs to be responsible for the health. James’ life is the top priority to consider.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer