PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Grand Canyon University PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study– Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Grand Canyon University PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Grand Canyon University PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
The introduction for the Grand Canyon University PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
Need a high-quality paper urgently?
We can deliver within hours.
How to Write the Body for PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
After the introduction, move into the main part of the PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
Sample Answer for PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
| Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence | Patient Preferences Autonomy |
| Medical indications include the clinical evidence that guides the health provider in making a diagnosis. They also help establish the severity of severity associated with an underlying health disorder (Haddad & Geiger, 2019). Medical indications thus guide in identifying the treatment options. Beneficence is an ethical principle that refers to the duty to do good, prevent harm, and maximize benefits to enhance a patient’s wellbeing (Haddad & Geiger, 2019). Nonmaleficence is an ethical principle that means the obligation to cause no harm either in physiological, psychological, social, or spiritual ways (Torry, 2017). It refers to the duty of a health provider to cause no harm to the patient and minimize potential harm. In the case study, the attending physician demonstrates the principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence by recommending immediate dialysis to relieve the fluid buildup and stop further deterioration of James’ condition. Although James’s parents opted not to have their son undergo dialysis at first, they demonstrate beneficence and nonmaleficence when they bring their son back when his condition deteriorates. Mike is also worried if he should allow Samuel to donate a kidney with a concern that it might cause harm to him. | Patient preferences refer to a person’s evaluation of dimensions of health outcomes and significantly influence patients’ health care choices (Haddad & Geiger, 2019). Patient preferences often result from a consideration of specific health elements such as expected treatments or health outcomes. Autonomy is an ethical principle that refers to the duty to respect a patient’s right to self-governance. This is demonstrated by offering a patient the ability to choose and act on that decision (Torry, 2017). In the case study, the principle of Autonomy is upheld by the attending physician when he discussed with James’ parents on the treatment options for James. The attending also allows James’ parents to provide consent for treatment since James is a minor. The attending physician respects Mike’s decision to forego the decision to have immediate dialysis instead of attending faith healing services. The nephrologist also informs Mike of the treatment options for a kidney transplant and allows him to decide whether to present Samuel for kidney donation. |
| Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy | Contextual Features Justice and Fairness |
| Quality of life refers to the general wellbeing of persons and societies. The WHO defines quality of life as an individual’s perception of his or her position in life as per the culture and value systems in which they live and in perspective to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns (WHO, 2018). The attending physician recommended immediate dialysis to promote James’ quality of life, which demonstrates upholding beneficence and nonmaleficence. James’ health condition had worsened, but with regular dialysis sessions, he became stable. The nephrologist recommended a kidney transplant to improve James’ quality of life since he could not be kept on dialysis for a lifetime. The nephrologist also upholds beneficence by suggesting to James’s parents an ideal donor match, James’ brother, after several people offered to donate but were not compatible. Mike also has his sons’ best interest at heart, although he is in a dilemma if he should allow James’ brother to donate a kidney in the fear that it could harm him. | Contextual features address how professional, family, financial, religious, legal, and institutional factors influence clinical decisions (Torry, 2017). These factors include the circumstances in which the clinical case occurs. The ethical principle of Justice and fairness refers to the duty to treat all patients fairly and equitably (Haddad & Geiger, 2019). Justice and fairness were upheld in the case study when the attending physician takes back James when he returns in a critical condition. Mike and Joanne believe that faith healing services would better James’ conditions, and Mike is even considering waiting for God’s miracle to heal James. |
Also Read
PHI-413V Healing and Autonomy Case Study
PHI-413V Worldview Analysis and Personal Inventory
Topic 3: Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Sample Answer 2 for PHI 413V Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Part 1: Chart (60 points)
Based on the reading of the “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” and topic Resources, use the four boxes approach to organize relevant ethical issues related to the four principles (beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice). Provide the information by means of bullet points with complete sentences in the box. Gather as much data as possible within this 1-page chart.
| Medical Indications Beneficence and Nonmaleficence | Patient Preferences Autonomy |
| Medical indications refer to the clinical evidence that clinicians use when making a clinical diagnosis. Medical indications also refer to the interpretations of a patient’s physical and psychological condition that make the basis for the clinician’s clinical judgments. The attending physician made a medical indication for immediate dialysis after identifying that James had fluid buildup that would deteriorate his health if not corrected. The nephrologist recommends James to have a kidney transplant after interpreting that James would not survive only with dialysis. The attending physician upheld beneficence when he recommended immediate dialysis, which would improve James’ symptoms of high blood pressure and fluid buildup and prevent complications.Recommending dialysis shows that the physician aimed to maximize treatment benefits to improve the child’s wellbeing (Fowler & Schoonover-Shoffner, 2023).The physician upholds nonmaleficence when he agrees to take back James after he is brought back to the hospital in a deteriorated state. The physician places James on dialysis to prevent further health deterioration and to prevent further harm to other body organs. | Patient preferences refer to a patient’s choices when faced with decisions about their health and medical treatment. The treatment choices reflect a patient’s experience, beliefs, and values based on the healthcare provider’s recommendations (Fowler & Schoonover-Shoffner, 2023).In the case of medical indications for treatment, the healthcare provider should propose treatment interventions that a patient may accept or decline.Joanne and Mike chose to forego the recommended immediate dialysis for James and place their faith in God.Respect for autonomy is demonstrated by allowing patients to decide on their treatment and respecting their decision even though it differs from the provider’s recommendation (Fowler & Schoonover-Shoffner, 2023). The attending physician respected patient autonomy by informing James’ parents of the available treatment options for their child. The physician respected Joanne’s and Mike’s decision to forego dialysis and instead seek faith-healing services in their church. James is a minor, and the physician had to seek consent from his parents. The nephrologist also upholds autonomy when he discusses kidney transplant options for James with Mike and Joanne and allows them to decide on whether to allow his brother to be a kidney donor. |
| Quality of Life Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy | Contextual Features Justice and Fairness |
| Quality of life is described as the level of satisfaction individuals experience and value about their lives and their specific physical, social, and mental health.The ethical dimensions of any clinical must consider improving a patient’s quality of life.When medical care fails to improve a patient’s quality of life, ethical problems often arise.Beneficence aims to implement treatment interventions that will improve patients’ satisfaction with the quality of their lives (Fowler & Schoonover-Shoffner, 2023).The attending physician recommended immediate dialysis, relieving the patient’s symptoms and preventing further kidney complications.The recommendation not only upholds beneficence and nonmaleficence but also seeks to improve James’ physical and overall health quality. The nephrologist suggests that James undergo a kidney transplant since dialysis would not sustain his life in the long term.The nephrologist gives Mike and Joanne time to decide whether to allow James’s brother, Samuel, to donate one of his kidneys.He understands that this is a critical decision since it risks affecting Samuel’s quality of life if complications occur after the kidney donation. | Contextual features deal with how clinical decisions are influenced by family, professional, religious, financial, legal, and institutional factors.These factors are the context in which a clinical case occurs. Clinical decisions are not only determined by the healthcare provider and the patient but are influenced and controlled by the context in which they occur (Fowler & Schoonover-Shoffner, 2023).Religious factors influenced Mike and Joanne’s decision to forego immediate dialysis for James.They had witnessed a close friend recover after she had a serious stroke in a faith healing service.This influenced them to put their faith in God and hope that James would recover through prayers.Healthcare professionals are expected to demonstrate justice and fairness by providing fair and equitable treatment interventions to all their patients. Although James’ parents had initially declined the recommended treatment interventions, they were just to the child when they returned him for treatment after his condition deteriorated.The attending physician also demonstrated justice and fairness when he agreed to initiate James on dialysis and provided the needed treatment interventions to stabilize his condition. |
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how the four principles approach and four boxes approach would be applied:
- In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how would each of the principles be specified in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
| According to the Christian worldview, beneficence refers to the duty of the healthcare provider and James parents to take the necessary actions to improve James’ health and maintain his dignity. The Holy Scripture obligates Christians to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Thus, Christians would have prioritized interventions to preserve James’ life and improve his condition. Christians view nonmaleficence as the healthcare provider’s duty to provide medical interventions without causing further harm to the patient or lowering their dignity (White, 2020). Christians believe that medical interventions should be for the good of the patient, and thus, anything that might harm the patient should be shunned. Thus, they would oppose interventions that would deteriorate James’ health. This includes foregoing the recommended treatment interventions that would have prevented further health complications. The Christian worldview views respect for autonomy as respect for free will, a fundamental Christian theme (White, 2020). Christians suppose that choice is available and vital for all humans and that they have the freedom to make their own decisions, whether wise or unwise. In this case, the Christian worldview would regard James’ parents as having the free will to make medical decisions for their son as long as they accept the consequences of their decisions. Christians are expected to be just and fair when dealing with all human beings, regardless of their background. Thus, the Christian worldview would expect the healthcare providers to provide equal treatment to James, similar to other patients, despite his religious background and parents’ beliefs. |
- In 200-250 words answer the following: According to the Christian worldview, how might a Christian weigh and balance each of the four principles in this case? Explain why. (45 points)
| A Christian can weigh and balance the four ethical principles by identifying which principle will improve the patient’s overall health and quality of life. The healthcare professionals and James’ parents are responsible for making choices that benefit the child (White, 2020). Regarding beneficence, the Christian worldview would consider if an intervention will benefit the patient without stripping him of his dignity. Therefore, the providers should be certain that the interventions they are recommending, like dialysis and a kidney transplant, have been established to be safe and effective in patients with kidney failure. Beneficence goes hand in hand with nonmaleficence. Christians would weigh this principle by requiring that the proposed medical interventions have no adverse consequences for the patient (White, 2020). Besides, a Christian would weigh the benefits of a kidney transplant for James versus the potential consequences to Samuel. A Christian would weigh and balance beneficence and nonmaleficence versus autonomy by determining if the decisions to uphold the right to free will benefit the patient (White, 2020). Mike and Joanne were given the freedom to make medical decisions for James, but their choices had adverse consequences and led to further deterioration of James’ condition. The right to autonomy may be overlooked if a person does not understand the consequences of their decisions. Justice and fairness would have an equal share as a Christian would expect James’ parents and the provider to make fair decisions for the child. The provider should provide high-quality, safe interventions and treat James similarly to other patients. |
References
Fowler, M. D., & Schoonover-Shoffner, K. (2023). Rising to “The Highest Morals”—The Rich History of Nursing Ethics. Journal of Christian Nursing, 40(2), 86–95.
White, N. (2020). Practicing dignity: An introduction to Christian values and decision making in health care. Retrieved from https://lc.gcumedia.com/phi413v/practicing-dignity-an-introduction-to-christian-values-and-decision-making-in-health-care/v1.1/#/home
PHI-413V-RS-T2 Case Study Fetal Abnormality Sample
Case Study: Fetal Abnormality
Jessica is a 30-year-old immigrant from Mexico City. She and her husband Marco have been in the United States for the last three years and have finally earned enough money to move out of their Aunt Maria’s home and into an apartment of their own. They are both hard workers. Jessica works 50 hours a week at a local restaurant and Marco has been contracting side jobs in construction. Six months before their move to an apartment, Jessica finds out she is pregnant.
Four months later, Jessica and Marco arrive at the county hospital, a large, public, nonteaching hospital. A preliminary ultrasound indicates a possible abnormality with the fetus. Further scans are conducted, and it is determined that the fetus has a rare condition in which it has not developed any arms and will not likely develop them. There is also a 25% chance that the fetus may have Down syndrome.
Dr. Wilson, the primary attending physician, is seeing Jessica for the first time, since she and Marco did not receive earlier prenatal care over concerns about finances. Marco insists that Dr. Wilson refrain from telling Jessica the scan results, assuring him that he will tell his wife himself when she is emotionally ready for the news. While Marco and Dr. Wilson are talking in another room, Aunt Maria walks into the room with a distressed look on her face. She can tell that something is wrong and inquires of Dr. Wilson. After hearing of the diagnosis, she walks out of the room wailing loudly and praying aloud.
Marco and Dr. Wilson continue their discussion, and Dr. Wilson insists that he has an obligation to Jessica as his patient and that she has a right to know the diagnosis of the fetus. He furthermore is intent on discussing all relevant factors and options regarding the next step, including abortion. Marco insists on taking some time to think of how to break the news to Jessica, but Dr. Wilson, frustrated with the direction of the conversation, informs the husband that such a choice is not his to make. Dr. Wilson proceeds back across the hall, where he walks in on Aunt Maria awkwardly praying with Jessica and phoning the priest. At that point, Dr. Wilson gently but briefly informs Jessica of the diagnosis and lays out the option for abortion as a responsible medical alternative, given the quality of life such a child would have. Jessica looks at him and struggles to hold back her tears.
Jessica is torn between her hopes of a better socioeconomic position and increased independence, along with her conviction that all life is sacred. Marco will support Jessica in whatever decision she makes but is finding it difficult not to view the pregnancy and the prospects of a disabled child as a burden and a barrier to their economic security and plans. Dr. Wilson lays out all of the options but clearly makes his view known that abortion is “scientifically” and medically a wise choice in this situation. Aunt Maria pleads with Jessica to follow through with the pregnancy and allow what “God intends” to take place and urges Jessica to think of her responsibility as a mother.