The physician is a well-educated professional, so he knows which complications James has, and is aware of possible negative consequences in case of refusal to undergo a kidney transplant. It seems that the doctor has to take a firm position and urge parents to do all the needed procedures, but here is where the issue of patient autonomy comes in. The autonomy was given to the household to decide on the healthcare of their small son.
Parents opted to forgo the dialysis, and that initial decision resulted in the degeneration of James’ situation. In that case, the healthcare team has to consider the impact on respecting an individual instead of caring about the autonomy of parents who have authorized rights. James is someone who is in danger of losing his life, but he does not possess the right of choice yet.
According to Obidimma and Uzoechi (2019), patient autonomy is an important principle in bioethics, which should be respected, but must also be subjected to certain limitations. In this particular case, parents withdrew from medical care for a life-threatening affliction, which can ultimately lead to the death of their son. It contradicts with the obligation of non-maleficence the medical practitioner has because Mike’s decision can harm his son. That is why it is a doctor’s professional obligation to explain to Mike that he is making irrational and harmful decisions, trying to persuade him to make the best choice.
Throughout history, there have always been debates over medical interventions between Christianity and secular bioethics. Perceptions about health and sickness vary from one domain of Christianity to another. For instance, Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics often come into agreement on issues of protecting human life but disagree on the methods of how it can be achieved. Protestants rely on scripture, while Roman Catholics appreciate the natural law, what is the main reason for the discrepancy.
According to Kaldjian (2019), Christian doctrine changes the perceptions people have about notions like health, death, illness, and suffering, and it, in turn, shapes their decisions. Christian virtues, which could be found in scripture, serve as practical wisdom for patients to find out the best solution and to avoid something misleading.
On the one hand, Christian doctrine states that God does not deliberately give the illness, as it is an outcome from the original fall of Eve and Adam. The scripture hints that sickness is a message from God pointing at His purpose for humanity.The Bible teaches to live following God’s covenant and instructions to maintain good health. Some Christians believe that sickness and hardship have a transformative effect on adherents and suffering is valued by them as redemption, similar to Jesus’ suffering on the cross.
On the other hand, Jesus is well-known for his compassion for the weak and healing practices that became a sign of determination to ease the inevitable suffering of sinful humanity. In general, medical intervention is allowed within the scripture for the followers as it states that “persons in health do not need a physician, but the ailing do” (Iltis, 2019). The Bible recommends to prevent and relieve redundant suffering but concerning the sanctity of individual life.
It seems that Mike views the sickness of his son as a test of his faith. For this reason, the father refused the dialysis and tried a spiritual healing option instead, which deteriorated the situation. Mike, as a true Christian, has to maintain his faith, praying to God for appropriate directions and look through the Bible to find a piece of advice about life decisions. However, in case of sickness, the Bible also suggests consulting with other doctors, his Pastor, and his family.
Taking into consideration the unsuccessful spiritual healing session, Mike has to agree to organ transplant and trust that God will rescue his son through this procedure. Nevertheless, he can still involve spiritual healing in tandem with medical treatment.
In this case, there is an apparent lack of knowledge of exactly how harmful the situation between the two parties is. One could state that the physician failed to find a key to the religious family that leads to partial awareness of James’ issue among Mike and Joanne. According to McSherry, Ross, Balthip, and Young (2019), the spiritual needs assessment helps to build a warm and respectful relationship between the doctor and patients. Physicians have to conduct the spiritual needs assessment in order to define the important beliefs which will influence the further process of treatment. The doctor has to be open-minded and able to use such tools as FICA and HOPE mnemonics.
With the help of the spiritual assessment, the physician could find out and determine all fears which follow Mike in his decisions. Documented information on Mike’s spiritual background, perspective, and openness to discuss the topic should be incorporated in negotiations about interventions in times of crisis. The doctor would persuade Mike to agree to dialysis and suggest that he combine it with spiritual healing methods, which could prevent the deterioration of his son’s health issue. Even for Mike, the initial dialysis procedure could be easier tolerated in terms of spiritual needs than further kidney transplant involving his other son.
To conclude, medical practice often deals with cases where the spiritual needs of patients play an important role. In this case, the patients’ autonomy can be slightly restricted by the physician to prevent others from hurting. Christians have to keep their faith, but as well remember that God is not against the elimination of unnecessary suffering, while doctors are better at conducting the spiritual needs assessment.
References
Iltis, A. (2019). Bioethics and Human Flourishing: Christian Wisdom in a Secular Age. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality.
Kaldjian, L. C. (2019). Purpose and providence: An outline for Christian practical wisdom in healthcare. Christian Bioethics 25(2), 169–91.
Obidimma, E. O., & Uzoechi, R. A. (2019). The limits of patient autonomy as a ground to refuse medical treatment. African Journal of Constitutional and Administrative Law, 3.
McSherry, W., Ross, L., Balthip, K., Ross, N., & Young, S. (2019). Spiritual Assessment in Healthcare: An Overview of Comprehensive, Sensitive Approaches to Spiritual Assessment for Use Within the Interdisciplinary Healthcare Team. In Spirituality in Healthcare: Perspectives for Innovative Practice (pp. 39-54). Springer, Cham.