Introduction
The boy’s parents voiced the patient’s preferences, including several important topics. Mike and Joanna chose not to have one of their sons receive dialysis, which worsened their situation. Joanna and Mike, who wanted to give their kidneys, could not find eligible recipients.
Discussion
Moreover, the parents had to determine if they wished Samuel, their second son, to help his sibling by donating a kidney. Jamesâs nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was stable and given regular dialysis but would require a kidney transplant within the year. In other words, patients were free to weigh their beliefs against medical advice. To maintain the stability of his health, James must occasionally undergo dialysis. A kidney transplant necessitates the usual dietary and exercise limitations before and after the procedure (Garcia, 2020). Also, James and Samuel would have to live with one kidney if the parent would have consented to their other twin donating one of his kidneys.
Three characteristics are included in the contextual features provided in this instance. On the one hand, the patient’s parents are Christians who fervently support prayer-based treatment. On the other hand, James’ condition has worsened because of this fact, which might impact Mike and Joanna’s choice to get a kidney transplant for their child. Second, James’ identical twin brother is the perfect candidate to serve as a donor. Additionally, although it is not mentioned in the narrative, the expense of critical care, dialysis treatments, and potential surgery is insignificant and can impact parents’ choices. Thus, both positive and negative effects of contextual factors on the patient’s state are seen.
The patient’s preference is the fundamental idea put forward in the case. Liberal values can come from a religious perspective. It teaches that each individual has the right to be heard and that future decisions must consider their opinions (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Christianity emphasizes tolerance, openness to instruction and correction, and respect for others as potential truth-bearers (Murphy, 2020). These characteristics respect each person’s ability to participate in group decision-making while considering individual values and beliefs. Patient preference is, therefore, the concept that people with a Christian worldview would appreciate the most.
However, this premise is in dispute because it worsened the condition. First, Mike and Joanna chose not to undergo dialysis out of personal preference and reasons of religion, which, despite the regular dialysis treatments, would require a kidney transplant. If the choice were based on the facts and a mix of the other three principles, kidney transplantation would not arise. Second, the same issue can result in a more significant rejection of the suggested operation since the parents would see it as a test of their faith. This dilemma, however, is distinct from the first since the parents must choose if it is appropriate to have Samuel give a kidney because doing so will affect his quality of life.
Conclusion
In conclusion, since personal choice was the problem that Christians regarded most highly, this became the focus of the case, which concentrated on the choice not to undergo dialysis.
References
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics: Marking its fortieth anniversary. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(11), 9â12. Web.
Garcia, J. L. (2020,). Virtues and principles in biomedical ethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 45(4), 471-503. Web.
Murphy, T. F. (2020). Theorizing religion in its meanings for bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 20(12), 47â49. Web.