Our Nursing Papers Samples/Examples

Applying the Four Principles Case Study

Part 1: Chart (60 points)

Based on the “Healing and Autonomy” case study, fill out all the relevant boxes below. Provide the information by means of bullet points or a well-structured paragraph in the box. Gather as much data as possible.


Medical Indications

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Patient Preferences


●        The physician must ensure that they have done everything possible for the good health of the patient. This also means that they need to wear out all options to makes sure that the health of the patient has improved or his life is prolonged. This happened when James father considered convincing James brother to donate kidney.

●        The patient should not be coerced to treatment that they do not want. Even though there was a perfect match for kidney transplant, it is important that the physician allowed James to have faith in spiritual healing until the time he would think otherwise and consent for a transplant.

Quality of Life

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Contextual Features

Justice and Fairness

●        James father would have consented to the transplant and convinced his other some to donate one kidney for a transplant, when James life came to very near danger.

●        The physicians needs to do the right thing, which is to ensure that the patient is healed. However, it is also required that the physician listen’s to the patients decision to believe on faith healing as a Christian. Denying them the right to faith healing would be wrong and unfair, however, the right and just thing to do is to convince the patient to undergo a transplant.

Part 2: Evaluation

Answer each of the following questions about how principlism would be applied:

  1. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, which of the four principles is most pressing in this case? Explain why. (45 points)

Beneficence is one of the greatest ethical principle which mostly addresses the idea that the action by the physician should be in the manner that will promote the good of the patient. Doing well from the part of the physician is also important especially when it is will benefit the patient. Beneficence however need not to be confused by non-maleficence that states that a physician should not harm a patient.  The principle in regard to the case study means that the physician should have the obligation for him to protect his patient from harm by removing or preventing all parts of bad situations and promoting things that would benefit them.  In the cases study for example, it was the role of Mike to inform the physician that he had decided to make the decision to have his other son Samuel to lose a kidney and not allow the spiritual process since this was something that would be reversed.  Generally as a physician one is expected to see that patient as a whole and to think about the long term effects of the patients. This is because beneficence is centered on ensuring the good for a patient, the difficulty with this is that the principle often lies on the definition of what is good and what that good would mean to the patient.  For some patients, like in the case study, good might also means allowing them to die when their time comes, however to others, goo might mean ensuring the patient has undergone a difficult procedure so that their life is prolonged.



  1. In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian rank the priority of the four principles? Explain why. (45 points)


According to the worldview Christians must rank the priority of four principles in relation to the health and faith of the individual. In this case, it is important to look at respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and Justice as the last principle when everything has been exhausted. This is because in regard to the James story, the patients has the right to make informed decisions regarding the medical care of their patients.  The principle also underlies the demands for the physician to seek consent or ensure there is an informed agreement from the side of the patient before making any investigation or having the treatment take place. Perhaps this principle is as at its most forcible where it is important for the patient to practice their autonomy or when James refused to continue with treatment and rely on their faith in God.  The principle also requires that a patient like James that is suffering from kidney problem has the right to choose whether to consent for kidney transplant or not. The right of choice is also not limited to what others might regard as the right thing to do.  Notwithstanding it exists that the reason to ensure the choice the make about his health is not irrational, should be known or existent. It will however depend on the reason he is coerced to decide and will not be said to be his or should not be respected if it means risking their life. In respect to the condition of James, if the physician had concerns regarding coercion, right medical or treatment practice would ensure there is more time spent to discuss with the patient all the options, including holding on faith so that they can confirm the decision was genuinely theirs.