Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The Healing and Autonomy case study is complex and involves a variety of issues. The lack of understanding between parents and the physician of a child diagnosed with kidney failure leads to poor decision-making as a boys health continues to deteriorate. A dilemma of whether parents should be allowed to make irrational choices based on personal religious beliefs and values remains unaddressed, which is why the discussion of autonomy is important.
Pressing Issues in the Case Study
In the given case study, the problem of Christian religion affecting crucial treatment decisions has been raised. The most pressing issue is associated with the parents choosing religious healing over clinical procedures. Mike and Joanne, who learn about the glomerulonephritis diagnosis of their son, do not agree to proceed with dialysis to relieve the symptoms. They explain this by the fact that they have witnessed a friend in the church being prayed for and subsequently gaining back her mobility after a stroke and expect the same miracle to happen to their son.
Another pressing issue relates to the fact that the health of their son James (who has a twin brother Samuel) is deteriorating each day, with his kidney requiring a transplant within a year. As his parents donor kidneys do not match, Samuels tissue is the best suited for the transplant. The boys parents continue making irrational decisions that have minimum chances of succeeding.
Allowing Parents Make Irrational Decisions
The question of whether the physician should allow Mike and Joanne to continue making harmful decisions regarding the treatment of their son is hard to answer. As both of them identify themselves as Christians, one may assume that parents believe that God wishes their family the best and thus should allow them to proceed with the clinical treatment of their son. It cannot be disputed that the parents also wish their son the best and act according to their faith in goodwill. Even if the physician disagrees, the parents have the moral right to look for a variety of possible treatment options.
According to Meilaender (2013) in his book Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, even patients with the highest levels of autonomy do not have the right to choose the course of their treatment. Doctors not only have the responsibility to offer high-quality services to their patients, but they also put their licenses on the line. Because of this, they are fostering trusting relationships between patients and their physicians is crucial to ensure the unity of opinions. If, for example, James parents decide to forgo the dialysis, the physician should express his or her dissatisfaction with the decision and communicate the possible results of the absence of treatment.
In this case, if Joanne and Mike cannot agree to treat James clinically, the relationship between them and their physician should not continue. It will be harmful to the doctors reputation to allow the parents to continue making harmful decisions because there is a duty of care that requires compliance on the part of healthcare providers. Allowing irrational behaviors that harm the health of a patient is something against which physicians protest. Therefore, if Mike and Joanne continue choosing faith overtreatment, the physician of their child should recommend them to seek out another healthcare provider.
Case Analysis Perspectives
Based on the issues of patient autonomy, organ donation, and treatment refusal, the present case should be analyzed from two perspectives. The first perspective should be concerned with the perceptions of James parents regarding the medical treatment of their son. Their religion says that prayer is an effective treatment of an illness, and by faith healing, a person can achieve the same results as with traditional medicine.
Moreover, there are instances of alleged healing by faith within the church, which makes some believers think that prayer can solve all health issues (Donnelly, 2014). Faith healing services are very popular because they are held with positive intent in mind. When a person heals, these services take credit for the positive outcomes. When prayer does not work, the negative outcomes are often hidden. Nevertheless, in the case of Mike and Joanne, it is important to understand that their intentions are honest and positive.
The second perspective to be explored in the analysis of this case study refers to the opinions of the medical community on faith healing. There are multiple instances around the world of parents refusing the medical treatment of their children because of their religious affiliations. Media publications such as The Guardian or The Independent have reported devastating news of children dying in the name of Christ: (Wilson, 2016, para. 1).
Healthcare providers are highly aware of this problem and therefore try to persuade parents to be more careful about choosing faith healing over traditional medical treatments, including organ transplantation. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the variety of harmful effects of health care refusal based on faith. Overall, the case study does not have one definite conclusion to which one may come due to the variety of opinions regarding the viability of faith healing. While some people may see religion as a supplement to traditional treatments, others may be completely opposed to it regardless of intentions.
Solving the Identified Problems
When it comes to the stance of Christianity on health and illness, there is a theological opinion that Jesus suffered and died on a cross to save humanity. Because of this, the pain and hardships of human beings are considered redemptive and transformative qualities. Besides, it is believed that when a person is going through a hard time concerning health, he or she can bring themselves closer to God, who initially suffered on the cross ( Christianity on health and illness, n.d.). However, very few religious doctrines prevent believers from seeking the assistance of medical treatments because human is considered sacred.
As a Christian, Mike should understand that God does not inflict pain and suffering on people purposefully and that the biomedical solution that medicine offers may have been brought to them by a higher deity. However, one can only give advice on what Mike and his wife should do because the final decision will remain up to them. Since the Christian faith is based on fostering a trusting relationship between believers and their God, Jamess parents should consider organ transplantation as the Creators answer to their prayers.
If in their belief, God controls all aspects of human life, then doctors are highly likely to be guided by Him and therefore be able to treat their son. This solution seems the most reasonable because, in this way, Mike and Joanne will remain faithful in their God and extend their faith to the doctors trying to help James.
Conclusion
In cases such as the situation with a boy diagnosed with glomerulonephritis, finding a balance between the adherence to ones religion and the trust in the expertise of health care providers is the most viable solution. Both parents and the boys physician should find a compromise through acting in the best interest of the patient rather than their personal ideologies and beliefs. If a compromise cannot be found, then the relationship between them should cease to exist because of two reasons. First, a physician cannot subject his or her reputation to scrutiny by allowing parents to make irrational decisions regarding a childs health. Second, parents should not impose their beliefs upon others if these beliefs are detrimental to health outcomes.
References
Christianity on health and illness. (n.d.). Web.
Donnelly, K. (2014). The power of prayer isnt lost in the modern age. ABC News. Web.
Meilaender, G. (2013). Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (3rd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Wilson, J. (2016). Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ. The Guardian. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.