Case Presentation
Healthcare providers are expected to address patients’ needs and follow the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, among others. However, James’s case requiring a kidney transplant indicates that the patient’s and his family’s spiritual needs, as well as the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, can sometimes contradict each other. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the idea of the patient’s spiritual needs from the perspective of the Christian worldview.
Decision-Making and the Principle of Autonomy
While respecting a patient’s autonomy is essential, it should not override the responsibility to provide the best possible care and treatment. The physician should not allow Mike to make ineffective decisions that are unsafe for James. The reason is that Christians tend to prioritize the well-being and health of others above personal beliefs and desires, and James’ health is a priority in this context. Dialysis and a kidney transplant are necessary for James to survive, and by refusing these treatments based on faith healing alone, Mike is putting James’ life at risk. It is important to remember that faith and medicine are not mutually exclusive, and God can work through various interventions to bring about healing.
The Christian worldview values life and encourages individuals to make decisions that promote health and well-being. Allowing James to suffer and potentially die due to irrational decision-making would not be respectful of his autonomy. Thus, autonomy should be balanced with the principle of beneficence, which requires healthcare providers to act in the best interest of the patient (Houska & Loučka, 2019). The physician should educate and counsel Mike and Joanne about the importance of medical treatments and the potential risks of relying solely on faith healing.
Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Christians can approach sickness and health with the understanding that their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). Therefore, it is people’s responsibility to take care of their bodies and seek appropriate care intervention when necessary. A medical intervention is a unique gift from God that can be used to alleviate suffering and promote healing. In the case of Mike and James, it is clear that James requires an immediate intervention in the form of dialysis. The attending physician has recommended this course of action in order to relieve James’s symptoms and improve his condition. As a Christian, Mike should prioritize the well-being and health of his son and follow the advice of care professionals.
While faith healing can be a legitimate aspect of Christian belief, it should not be used as a substitute for treatment in cases where it is clearly needed. God has given people the ability to develop medical knowledge and interventions for a reason, and we must use them responsibly. In this situation, Mike should reason that relying on God does not mean rejecting any pharmacological, medical, or non-pharmacological approaches. From this perspective, it is necessary to accept that God can operate via the medical professionals and treatments available to individuals (Houska & Loučka, 2019; Reichman et al., 2005).
One should note that, by seeking medical intervention for James, Mike is appreciating the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, which prioritize the well-being of the patient. It is important to take efforts in order to address not only Mike’s spiritual interests but also James’ specific physical needs.
Furthermore, when it comes to the possibility of Samuel donating a kidney to James, Mike should carefully consider the potential risks and benefits. While it may be a difficult decision to make, Mike should weigh the potential for saving James’s life against the possible risks to Samuel. If the doctors have determined that Samuel is an ideal tissue match and the transplant is necessary for James’s survival, then it would be reasonable for Mike to proceed with the transplant.
Ultimately, Mike should remember that Christians are called to love and care for one another. This approach includes taking the necessary steps to ensure the health and well-being of our loved ones. Trusting in God does not mean taking unnecessary risks or rejecting medical interventions. On the contrary, it means recognizing that God can work through the healthcare field to bring about curing and restoration.
Spiritual Needs Assessment and Intervention
A spiritual needs assessment would be crucial in helping the physician assist Mike in determining appropriate interventions for James and his family. The physician can gain insight into Mike’s beliefs, values, and religious practices, as well as his understanding of illness, healing, and the role of faith in his life. This assessment would provide important information about how Mike’s spiritual beliefs may be influencing his decision-making process and his interactions with the healthcare team (Lormans et al., 2021). Understanding Mike’s spiritual needs can help the physician provide appropriate support and guidance and address misconceptions or misunderstandings about medical treatments and their compatibility with faith healing. The physician can provide education and information about the benefits of medical interventions, such as dialysis and kidney transplantation, and help Mike navigate the tension between faith and medical treatment.
Additionally, a spiritual needs assessment can assist healthcare workers in detecting any emotional or psychological distress that Mike may be experiencing as a result of his decision to forego dialysis. It can provide an opportunity for the physician to offer emotional support, explore any feelings of guilt or doubt that Mike may be experiencing, and help him find ways to cope with the challenges he is facing. Furthermore, the assessment can also be helpful for the physician to understand the impact of James’s illness on the family and other individuals involved in his care.
References
Houska, A., & Loučka, M. (2019). Patients’ autonomy at the end of life: A critical review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 57(4), 835-845.
Lormans, T., de Graaf, E., Van de Geer, J., Van der Baan, F., Leget, C., & Teunissen, S. (2021). Toward a socio-spiritual approach? A mixed-methods systematic review on the social and spiritual needs of patients in the palliative phase of their illness. Palliative Medicine, 35(6), 1071-1098.
Reichman, R. E., Gadson, S., Wongsarnpigoon, L., Gooneratne, N. S., & Wickremaratne, A. (2005). End of life and sanctity of life. Virtual Mentor, 7(5), 342-351.