Case Study: Healing and Autonomy

Question

Write an analysis of "Case Study: Healing and Autonomy." address the following questions:
1. Under the Christian narrative and Christian vision, what sorts of issues are most pressing in this case study?
2. Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James?
3. According to the Christian narrative and the discussion of the issues of treatment refusal, patient autonomy, and organ donation, how might one analyze this case?
4. How ought the Christian think about sickness and health? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James?

Answer

Case Study: Healing and Autonomy

Question 1

The Christian narrative and Christian vision pose a challenge of faith in medical situations. The parents, Mike and Joanne, choose to forego immediate treatment and dialysis for James. They have been previously moved by a sermon and what is to them a religious miracle and decide to take the same approach for the recovery of their son. The biggest issue is a clash and misaligned interaction between religion and modern medicine. In this case, the patients’ parents believe that religion and faith is more superior to modern medicine. On the other hand, the doctors have little to no influence over this situation even though it’s evident that they would recommend medical procedures (Hummer and Ellison, 2010). Interestingly, the biggest issue is that even after their son’s condition completely deteriorates, the parents still do not find fault in their actions and describe it as a form test from God. After searching for a much-required kidney donor to no avail, James twin brother Samuel emerges as the most probable donor. To Mike, this is an even bigger test of faith from God. He ponders over the decision to have one of his sons donate a kidney and remain with only one in an attempt to save his brothers’ life. 

BUY CASE STUDIES SNOW

Question 2

In this case, the physician should allow Mike to keep making decisions that are detrimental to James’ life and health. In fact, at this point, James life is highly threatened and at risk if he does not get a suitable donor. Equally, it appears that James is rare match as most people within the provided pool do not match him. At this point,it would be unethical for the physician to comply with Mike’s decisions as this directly puts his patents life at risk. More specifically,James life cannot be sustained on dialysis for more than a year. It is also clear that Mike is under informed on the fact that a person can survive and live a healthy life with only one kidney. This eliminates any probable danger for Samuel. If the physician approved that Samuel can indeed lead a healthy and normal life with one kidney at his age, then he must ensure that Mike and his wife fully understand this.

Question 3

Thisextremely complex case is being hindered by patient refusal, a religious narrative, patient autonomy and organ donation. Each of these activities occurs under different factors and structures (Cohen and Koeng, 2002). Firstly, the religious barrier surpasses normal Christianity values andreflects on more specific and reserved Christian denominations. As a result, even the medical team cannot simply dismiss this event as founded on Christian values. They must analyze and inquire more on the specific denomination of the set of characteristics that leads to this situation. At the same time, patient autonomy and participation has become one of the core values of health reform and nursing. This means that patients have more rights and opinions in their treatments than anyone else. Cultural, religious and philosophical preferences are now more than ever included in the health care process. This means that the process may not be as simple for the physician since Mike is well within his rights. Lastly, organ transplant and donation is highly structured procedure that requires a clear agreement and consent between the parties. This means that ultimately, Mike and Joanne are the only ones who can give their legal consent for Samuel to become a donor. The physician can thus not use an intrusive approach to convince Mike since his decision and that of his wife is final in the matter. And while the physician may have some sort of control and level of jurisdiction over James who is his patient, they have no control over Samuel.

GET NURSING ASSIGNMENT HELP

Question 4

Modern medicine has achieved great milestones in its own operation and its interaction with religion. Christians must not try to separate medicine from religion; instead, they should endeavor to conceptualize sickness and health issues through both dimensions. It is possible to accomplish religious and medical alignment in equal measure. For many people, religious faith will provide comfort and peace of mind that is extremely important in healing. Medical treatment will then deal with the clinical or scientific components of treatment and healing. In this situation, Mike should learn from his previous decision that ultimately leads James into a more critical situation. While his Christian religion is inherent and important for human his wife, the preservation of life is supported under the religion. Mike and his wife must evolve to understand their religion as a personal subject that requires the application of wisdom over misguided interpretations and understandings. Mike should begin to understand that it is indeed possible to trust in God, have faith and still follow medical recommendations. Christians can have faith in Biblical teachings, but they should equally work hard to develop solutions to medical problems. In this context, Mike’s failure to act as instructed by the doctor, and instead choosing to cling onto faith alone, reveals a false sense of faith that will most likely have negative effects. It is possible and acceptable to have both religious faith and at the same time to depend on science in what constitutes a complimentary approach to problem-solving (Lassiter, 1998).

References

Cohen, H. and Koeng, H. (2002). The Link between Religion and Health: Psychoneuroimmunology and the Faith Factor. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hummer, R. and Ellison, C. (2010). Religion, Families, and Health: Population-Based Research in the United States. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Lassiter, S. (1998). Cultures of Color in America: A Guide to Family, Religion, and Health. Westport: Greenwood Press.