+1 (206) 350-4565
support@nursingstudyhub.com
| An extrapolation of the fundamentals of principlism gives due weight to the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Beneficence requires that an individual in a decision-making role is obligated to act for the benefit of others. Mike has to make a decision that will enable the realization of optimal results for his son. On the other hand, nonmaleficence requires that an individual not inflict harm on others (Jahn, 2017). In this case, should Mike decide on an intervention that leads to the deterioration of his child’s health, he will have contravened the provisions of this principle. The principle of autonomy is also in play in this case. Mike reserves all decisions regarding his son’s treatment. He has to decide whether his son gets a transplant or not. He also has to decide whether his second son becomes James’ kidney donor. The principle of justice is also evident. Healthcare professionals must treat the case fairly despite having beliefs that are likely to impede the process of care. As evident in the case, Mike decided to forgo immediate dialysis upon recommendations from the physician.
In the Christian view, miracle manifestations exist, and divine healing can be achieved through faith in God. Despite evidence that divine healing exists, its predictability is still difficult (Coyle, 2017). As evident in the case, Mike’s first effort to seek healing for his son failed. He, however, has to make a similar but more complicated decision as to whether to trust God’s miracle or seek a transplant as advised by the nephrologists. |
+1 (206) 350-4565
support@nursingstudyhub.com