autonomy essay
In this study, autonomy is the capacity of an individual to make sensible and right decisions. Autonomy, in this case, is one of the most important principle, the patient Mr James who is a victim of acute glomerulonephritis and kidney failure, he was supposed to undergo immediate dialysis. James’ situation put his family and the nephrologist in a problematic position, which can be identified in the principle of autonomy. Autonomy happens when a person needs to decide among the available alternatives. This situation majorly occurs when a problem has two possible solutions and the right decision need to be made. In this case, study, after the nephrologist discloses the dialysis attempt, the family has two exclusives, ethically right choices, either, placing James on dialysis or take him to church. However, the family’s decision may cause James’ death if they chose to bring him back to dialysis. The nephrologist and the family would be the custodians of preventing, monitoring and ensure that any possibility must not be experienced as a result of the disease. Still, Mike and Joanne autonomy and confidentiality would be abused. Therefore, the initial dilemma, in this case, can be known as “if the family decides to take James for dialysis or place their faith in God.
That means according to this actual situation, the balance between placing James to dialysis and placing their faith, God explains the principle of autonomy.
Based on the Christian view, the following principles can be rank on the following criterion;
In Mr James’ case, the laws of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice and fairness can be equally applied. All the principles can be chosen without leaving the other one. All the four principles are not harmonious, in this case, the principles are the major reason which causes the dilemma. ‘if the family should decide to take James to a faith healing service immediately instead of putting James through multiple rounds of dialysis. Moreover, the principle of non-maleficence is deliberately a moral situation which breaches the autonomy principle and gives support to beneficence, justice and fairness principle in this case. Therefore, when considering the fact of Mr James. All the four principles clash together: Autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice and fairness.
Beneficence means taking a positive step to help others. James’ case, the most critical responsibility of the family and the nephrologist are to make a decisive action to improve the health of James. It, therefore, means the family has to take into consideration the choice which will be better for James, in this case, beneficence is applied when the family decides to give their faith in God by taking James to the healing sermon.
Non-maleficence means the responsibility not cause harm to others. Therefore, in this case, this principle requires the family action to ensure the safety of James by subjecting him to the right medication.
Autonomy being is defined as personal freedom of action in which a person determines actions; therefore, in this case, the nephrologist is required to respect the family’s decision. Besides, James’s nephrologist showed fairness and justice when he schedules a private appointment with Mike and Joanne.