Considering the present case scenario, it is necessary to ponder all the options for James’s recovery. Given the fact that the boy has a terminal stage of kidney failure, there is no option to avoid medical intervention, including dialysis and kidney transplant. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that Mike’s reasoning on the matter may eventually lead to irreversible damage, as waiting for a miracle to happen may lead to the patient’s death. However, it is also necessary to understand that a medical professional is by no means entitled to either interfere with the patient’s and caregivers’ spiritual considerations or convince the caregivers to support decisions other than their own. Both legally and ethically, the child’s parents, being his legal guardians, are in charge of their son’s life, and they are to make a decision unless proven incompetent.
For this reason, the physician cannot forbid Mike to make decisions on behalf of his son. Moreover, it is critical to remember that this decision concerns both his sons, and it is natural for him to question the spiritual aspect of facing such a challenge. However, what a physician can do in this scenario is to inform the parents about the implications of kidney transplant for both James and Samuel. For Samuel, donating a kidney will most likely be a safe procedure that will not have severe complications for his life, whereas the refusal of a kidney transplant for James may become fatal. Moreover, the physician may appeal to the fact that in the Christian narrative, such medical intervention is not regarded as an act against God’s will, as the phenomenon of sacrifice in the name of healing is natural for Christians (Grand Canyon University, 2020). The process of kidney transplant does not mean tampering with life and death, as donating a kidney is an act of James’s healing without losing another life.
The paradigm of Christianity perceives sickness as a manifestation of the human fall in the name of sin. According to the Christian narrative, God’s creation never intended to impose cruelty onto the worlds of humans, as everyone was created purely in God’s image. However, after Adam and Eve, the world has become replete with sickness and evil, with people being barely able to resist the temptation to act against God’s will (Grand Canyon University, 2020). However, even after Adam and Eve committed a sin that ruined the purity of the universe once and for all, God did not take away his mercy from people, giving them a chance of redemption and resurrection after physical death. Thus, while some people perceive disease as God’s punishment, it was human beings who catalyzed the emergence of sickness through their wrongdoings.
For this reason, when speaking of sickness, Christian people ought to perceive disease as a challenge that they have to face and overcome with dignity. In the case of James, the disease presents an even severer challenge, as Mike should make a decision instead of both of his children in order to save the life of one of them. It becomes understandable from Mike’s behavior that he is reluctant to perceive medical intervention and healing as a miracle of its kind, relying solely on God’s ability to miraculously cure his son. However, the overall paradigm of health care presupposes that people help God heal people on earth, transferring His blessings to a medical intervention that saves lives (Grand Canyon University, 2020). Hence, instead of waiting for a miracle to happen, Mike may become a witness of another, more viable miracle, which is allowing his son to save his brother’s life by doing arguably the most Christian thing a person could make – sacrifice.
In health care, the cases of complete organ compatibility are not as frequent as one may think. The fact that Samuel may have a perfect tissue match to donate the kidney to his brother is nothing but a miracle. Hence, if Mike considers the situation from this perspective, his faith in God will not be lost but found once again, as God did not leave his son to die and gave him the option to heal James with the help of his family. As a Christian, Mike should think about all the possible options to help his son without losing faith in God. Indeed, if Mike agrees to such a sacrifice for Samuel, he should not doubt that God will help him in case another challenge occurs.
When speaking of the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence in James’s situation, it is evident that the best possible solution in the case would be a kidney transplant. The principle of beneficence, in this case, calls for action in order not to harm James and let him live. The principle of nonmaleficence, for its part, is more applicable to Samuel, as it presupposes causing no harm to others (Grand Canyon University, 2020). However, in health care, the core principles of medical ethics shall not be employed and considered in isolation from each other. Hence, in the context of this situation, the benefit of James staying alive is likely to outweigh the harm caused to Samuel, as the lives of kidney donors are not usually associated with severe complications after the transplant. For this reason, Mike’s decision to settle for a transplant will not interfere with his faith in God. Furthermore, it will demonstrate that Mike does not hesitate the challenge because he believes in God’s blessing.
Spiritual needs assessment is an asset in terms of communicating with the patient and securing a meaningful treatment process. According to Nissen and Hvidt (2021), when facing a life-threatening medical condition, people’s needs in terms of spirituality increase, and once these needs are addressed, patients’ quality of life increases as well. For this reason, in a situation as complicated as Mike’s, it is imperative for a physician to conduct a spiritual needs assessment with the help of a long narrative or a psychometric test aimed at defining one’s spiritual preferences. While it is known that Mike is a Christian man, there is no indication of a specific confession to which he belongs, so it is necessary to dwell on this matter. By doing so, the physician has a chance to know whether Mike is willing to reach out to his spiritual community prior to make such a complicated decision. Moreover, it would be beneficial for Mike to talk to a healthcare chaplain in case there is one on the premises. Sometimes, when talking to a medical professional, patients may feel rather uncomfortable because they believe that clinicians are willing to talk them into a medical solution. The conversation with a chaplain, for its part, maybe more insightful and less stressful.
References
Grand Canyon University. (2020).Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care[E-book].
Nissen, R. D., & Hvidt, N. C. (2021). Assessing patients’ spiritual needs in healthcare: An overview of questionnaires. Spiritual Needs in Research and Practice, 59-78.