Write a 1,200-1,500 word analysis of “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy.” In light of the readings, be sure to address the following questions:
- Under the Christian narrative and Christian vision, what sorts of issues are most pressing in this case study?
- Should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem to him to be irrational and harmful to James?
- According to the Christian narrative and the discussion of the issues of treatment refusal, patient autonomy, and organ donation in the topic readings, how might one analyze this case?
- According to the topic readings and lecture, how ought the Christian think about sickness and health? What should Mike as a Christian do? How should he reason about trusting God and treating James?
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Case Study: Healing and Autonomy
Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born eight years ago. James is currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. James was originally brought into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection.
The spread of the A streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’ condition was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. Usually cases of acute glomerulonephritis caused by strep infection tend to improve on their own, or with an antibiotic. However, James also had elevated blood pressure and enough fluid buildup that required temporary dialysis to relieve.
The attending physician suggested immediate dialysis. After some time of discussion with Joanne, Mike informs the physician that they are going to forego the dialysis and place their faith in God.
Mike and Joanne had been moved by a sermon their pastor had given a week ago, and also had witnessed a close friend regain mobility when she was prayed over at a healing service after a serious stroke. They thought it more prudent to take James immediately to a faith healing service instead of putting James through multiple rounds of dialysis. Yet Mike and Joanne agreed to return to the hospital after the faith healing services later in the week, and in hopes that James would be healed by then.
Two days later the family returned, and was forced to place James on dialysis, as his condition had deteriorated. Mike felt perplexed and tormented by his decision to not treat James earlier. Had he not enough faith? Was God punishing him or James?
To make matters worse, James kidneys had deteriorated such that his dialysis was now not a temporary matter, and was in need of a kidney transplant. Crushed and desperate, Mike and Joanne immediately offered to donate one of their own kidneys to James, but they were not compatible donors. Over the next few weeks, amidst daily rounds of dialysis, some of their close friends and church members also offered to donate a kidney to James. However, none of them were tissue matches.
James’ nephrologist called to schedule a private appointment with Mike and Joanne. James was stable, given the regular dialysis, but would require a kidney transplant within the year. Given the desperate situation, the nephrologist informed Mike and Joanne of a donor that was an ideal tissue match, but as of yet had not been considered—James’ brother Samuel.
Mike vacillates and struggles to decide whether he should have his other son Samuel lose a kidney, or perhaps wait for God to do a miracle this time around. Perhaps this is where the real testing of his faith will come in? “This time around, it is a matter of life and death, what could require greater faith than that?” Mike reasons.
Less Than Satisfactory
|25.0 % Identification of Ethical Issues and Christian Principles and Values||The ethical issues and Christian principles and values stated have little to no relevance to the case study.||Either the ethical issues or the Christian principles and values pertaining to the case study are identified, but not both.||Ethical issues along with Christian principles and values pertaining to the case study are identified.||Ethical issues along with Christian principles and values pertaining to the case study are identified. At least one apparent tension between religious autonomy and physician recommendation are acknowledged.||Ethical issues along with Christian principles and values pertaining to the case study are identified. Any apparent tensions between religious autonomy and physician recommendation are acknowledged.|
|45.0 % Analysis of Ethical Issues and Christian Principles and Values||The analysis of the application of the Christian Worldview principles regarding the ethical issues has little to no relevance to the case study. Any conclusion is not supported.||The analysis of the application of the Christian Worldview principles regarding the ethical issues is lacking, but a viable conclusion can still be reached. The analysis shows that there is not an accurate understanding of the issues.||The analysis of the application of the Christian Worldview principles regarding the ethical issues is adequate in reaching a viable conclusion.||The analysis of the application of the Christian Worldview principles regarding the ethical issues is detailed in reaching a viable conclusion. A general, but not specific biblical perspective regarding medicine is discussed, along with how it relates to the issue of healing.||The analysis of the application of the Christian Worldview principles regarding the ethical issues is excellent in reaching a viable conclusion. An accurate biblical perspective with detailed interaction with the biblical text regarding medicine is clearly discussed, along with how it relates to the issue of healing.|
|20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness|
|7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose||Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.||Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.||Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.||Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.||Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.|
|8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction||Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.||Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.||Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.||Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.||Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.|
|5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)||Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.||Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.||Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.||Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.||Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.|
|5.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)||Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.||Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.||Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.||Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.||All format elements are correct.|
|5.0 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)||Sources are not documented.||Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.||Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.||Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.||Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.|
|100 % Total Weightage|