This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case

This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case. Organizing the data by means of the four boxes approach to analyze the case will help you apply the four principles (beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice).

Based on the reading of the “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” and topic Resources, you will complete the “Applying the Four Principles: Case Study” document by including the following:

Part 1: Chart

This chart will formalize the application of the four boxes approach by organizing the data from the case study according to the relevant principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.

Part 2: Evaluation

This part includes questions, to be answered in a maximum of 500 words, that evaluate how the four principles approach would be applied according to the Christian worldview.

Support your response using only Chapter 3 from the textbook Practicing Dignity: An Introduction to Christian Values and Decision-Making in Health Care and the Topic 3 Resource “Rising to \’The Highest Morals\’ -The Rich History of Nursing Ethics.”

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Expert Answer and Explanation

Topic 3: Applying the Four Principles: Case Study

Part 1: Chart (60 points)

Ethical Issues Based on the Principles of Beneficence Nonmaleficence, autonomy and Justice and Fairness

Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence	Patient Preferences Autonomy
On the principle of beneficence there was a chance to reduce the risk of serious and preventable harm. This could be by denying Mike a chance to find a religious center and continue with dialysis, which could have saved James’ kidneys The principle of nonmaleficence is also an issue as the doctors are bound to do no harm to Samuel, the other identical teen.	The health practitioners guaranteed autonomy by allowing Mike to take James to a healing center instead of a dialysis There is an issue with the autonomy of Samuel, who is a match for James who now needs a kidney transplant
Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy	Contextual Features Justice and Fairness
The quality of life was compromised through the principle of autonomy where Mike was allowed to take James home even though his condition was dire When James was taken from the care the first time, the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence were violated unintentionally.	Justice was evident through the treatment of Mike and James when they were in and out of the hospital. It was clear that the hospital respected Mike’s faith and when James got sicker, they were willing to take them back in and they did not treat them any differently. Fairness is still an issue, as Samuel is a potential donor but it seems unfair to subject him to donation when he is under the consenting age and does not understand truly what is happening.

Part 2: Evaluation