+1 (206) 350-4565
support@nursingstudyhub.com
| Medical Indications
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence |
Patient Preferences
Autonomy |
| The principle of beneficence and non-maleficence is among the major five ethical principles outlined by APA. The beneficence principle states that psychologists should only engage in activities, which are beneficial to others (Young, 2017). On the other hand, the principle of non-maleficence states that practitioners should ensure that no one is hurt during their practices (Singh & Ivory, 2015). They should expose clients to the minimum harm to obtain the best outcomes. In the case study, the incidents of beneficence and non-maleficence are as described below.
· The physician suggested immediate dialysis for James during the first visit due to his elevated blood pressure and fluid buildup, · Placing James on regular dialysis during the second visit to stabilize his deteriorating condition, · Proposing a kidney transplant to be performed within the next one year despite James being in a stable state currently, · Informing Mike and Joanne that the church members were not potential donors due to mismatch of their tissues, and · Suggesting for Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, James’ brother Samuel.
|
Autonomy is another major ethical principle, which psychologists and healthcare providers are required to adhere to. This ethical principle states that everyone is entitled to the right to independence, self-determination, and freedom to make their own choices without being influenced (Motloba, 2018). In the healthcare sector, the principle of autonomy states that clients have a right to make decisions about their own health without being influenced by care providers. Therefore, healthcare providers should respect autonomy even if they are not in agreement with the decision made by the client. The case study portrays various incidents of autonomy as illustrated below. Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative
v The physician did not interrupt when Mike and Joane were making decisions regarding James’ medication, v The physician did not interrupt when Mike and Joane were making a decision to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God, and v The physician did not interrupt when Mike and Joane were making a decision whether to let Samuel donate a kidney to James or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. |
| Quality of Life
Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy |
Contextual Features
Justice and Fairness |
| v The physician did not consider Mike or Joanne as ideal kidney donors to James since they were not compatible donors,
v The physician did not consider any of the church members as an ideal donor since their tissues did not match with those of James, v The physician advised Mike and Joanne to ensure a kidney transplant was done in the next year despite James’ current stable state, v The physician proposed Samuel as an ideal kidney donor, and Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative v The physician allowed Mike and Joanne to make a decision about Samuel donating one of his kidneys to his brother, James. |
This APA general principle holds that individuals are entitled to the advancements, which have been made within a particular field of practice such as psychology or healthcare (APA, 2020). Justice and fairness are portrayed in the case study in one major incident.
v The physician allowed James to use the dialysis machine. This machine was used to perform daily rounds of dialysis to stabilize his condition.
|
+1 (206) 350-4565
support@nursingstudyhub.com