Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative assignment guide for students who need clear directions on how to apply the four principles of principlism to “Healing and Autonomy” using a Christian worldview in a structured chart and short written evaluation.
Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative – Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case. In contemporary clinical ethics teaching, structured tools such as the four-boxes approach are widely used because they make complex moral questions more manageable for busy practitioners. Organizing the data in this way will help you apply the four principles of principlism.
[1]
Based on the “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” and other required topic study materials, you will complete the “Applying the Four Principles: Case Study” document that includes the following:
Part 1: Chart
This chart will formalize principlism and 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. Many clinicians and ethicists regard these four principles as a shared moral language that can bridge different worldviews, including Christian perspectives, when discussing difficult treatment decisions. Applying the Four Principles: Case Study.
[2]
Part 2: Evaluation
This part includes questions, to be answered in a total of 500 words, that describe how principalism would be applied according to the Christian worldview. In responding, you are encouraged to draw clear connections between the case details, the four principles, and central Christian themes such as love of neighbor, stewardship of life, and trust in God’s providence as highlighted in your course readings.
[3]
Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.
APA style is not required, but solid academic writing is expected. You should still aim for clear paragraphing, accurate use of terminology, and appropriate citations of the case study and topic resources in order to model good scholarly habits that will serve you in later courses.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.
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. As you summarize each box, try to distinguish clearly between facts from the case and value judgments, since this distinction often clarifies where ethical disagreements really lie. Gather as much data as possible.
[1]
| Medical Indications | Beneficence and Nonmaleficence |
|---|---|
| Patient Preferences | Autonomy |
| Quality of Life | Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy |
| Contextual Features | Justice and Fairness |
Part 2: Evaluation
Answer each of the following questions about how principlism would be applied:
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. You should consider not only the parents’ faith commitments but also biblical themes regarding care for children, responsibility for vulnerable persons, and respect for truthful medical counsel as discussed in your topic overview. (45 points)
[3]
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. Your answer may refer to ways Christian ethicists have reflected on tensions between autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice when seeking to act faithfully in health care settings. (45 points)
[4]
References:
-
- >
PHI-413V-RS Applying Four Principles CaseStudy
Case Study: Healing and Autonomy
Mike and Joanne are the parents of James and Samuel, identical twins born 8 years ago. James is currently suffering from acute glomerulonephritis, kidney failure. Recent pediatric data indicate that acute glomerulonephritis can present with a range of complications, including hypertension and fluid overload, that require timely intervention to prevent long-term renal damage. James was originally brought into the hospital for complications associated with a strep throat infection.
[5]
The spread of the A streptococcus infection led to the subsequent kidney failure. James’s condition was acute enough to warrant immediate treatment. Applying the Four Principles: Case Study. 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. Many Christian families describe similar moments of tension when they feel torn between trust in divine healing and acceptance of recommended medical interventions, which is a central focus of this case. 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.
[6]
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. Applying the Four Principles: Case Study. Had he not enough faith?
Was God punishing him or James? To make matters worse, James’s 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. Applying the Four Principles: Case Study.
James’s 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. In real-world practice, planning for pediatric kidney transplantation often involves multidisciplinary teams who consider medical urgency, donor suitability, psychosocial factors, and ethical questions about family donors. 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’s brother Samuel.
[5]
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? Mike reasons, “This time around it is a matter of life and death. What could require greater faith than that?” Applying the Four Principles: Case Study.
Answer Paper Help – Sample answer paragraph (example content)
In applying the four principles to “Healing and Autonomy,” I would begin by noting that James’s acute glomerulonephritis presents a clear medical indication for timely dialysis and eventual transplantation, which strongly engages the duty of beneficence and nonmaleficence. From a Christian worldview, preserving James’s life and preventing avoidable harm can be seen as a form of loving stewardship over the child entrusted to his parents’ care, even as the family continues to pray for healing and seek pastoral support. At the same time, the case reveals a complex interplay between parental autonomy, faith commitments, and the child’s emerging interests, which suggests that autonomy cannot be understood in isolation from responsibilities to protect the vulnerable. The option of using Samuel as a living donor raises additional questions about justice and fairness, such as whether it is morally acceptable to expose one child to surgical risk for the sake of another when alternative options like waiting for a deceased donor kidney may be possible. A Christian analysis might therefore argue that the most pressing principle in this case is nonmaleficence toward both boys, grounded in the call to avoid needless harm while seeking wise, compassionate care that respects God-given life and family relationships (cf. Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
[1][3]
Scholars in clinical ethics note that difficult pediatric cases often require careful balancing of parental autonomy with professional duties of beneficence and nonmaleficence, especially when parents’ religious beliefs influence refusal or delay of treatment. Empirical research on acute glomerulonephritis in children indicates that timely medical management can significantly reduce complications and long-term renal impairment, which strengthens the argument that beneficence has considerable weight in cases like James’s. Christian bioethicists have also proposed that justice, understood as giving each person their due in light of God’s character, provides an overarching context for ranking the principles because it protects the vulnerable and prevents any single value such as autonomy from eclipsing concern for life and neighborly love. For students completing this assignment, drawing on such sources can demonstrate that principlism is not merely a checklist; it is a structured way of reasoning that can be thoughtfully integrated with a Christian narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and hope in clinical decision making.
References
-
- >Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2019)
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
-
- . 8th edn. New York: Oxford University Press. Available at:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/principles-of-biomedical-ethics-9780190640873
-
- .
[1] >Gillon, R. (2018) ‘Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(2), pp. 65–69. doi:10.1136/medethics-2017-104020.
[1] >Medical Protection Society (2024) ‘The four principles of medical ethics’, Medical Protection. Available at: https://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/learning-from-cases-guides/essential-learning-law-and-ethics (Accessed 6 April 2026).
[2] >Bhat, S. et al. (2023) ‘Clinical profile of acute glomerulonephritis in children’, Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 17(9), pp. SC05–SC09. Available at: https://jcdronline.org/index.php/JCDR/article/view/12562 (Accessed 6 April 2026).
[5] >Mitchell, C. B. (2019) ‘Never go wrong: A Christian hierarchy of bioethical principles in 2 Peter’, Dignitas, 26(1), pp. 4–11. Available at: https://cbhd.org/dignitas-articles/never-go-wrong-a-christian-hierarchy-of-bioethical-principles-in-2-peter (Accessed 6 April 2026).
>How to answer the “Case Study on Biomedical Ethics in the Christian Narrative – Applying the Four Principles” assignment
>Applying the four principles in the Healing and Autonomy Christian ethics case
>Using autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice in the Healing and Autonomy case
Ranking the four biomedical principles from a Christian worldview
>Write a 500-word evaluation and complete the Applying the Four Principles chart for the Healing and Autonomy case, showing how a Christian worldview interprets autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice.
>In a 1–2 page assignment, fill in the four-boxes chart and answer two short essay questions explaining how a Christian worldview applies biomedical ethics principles to the Healing and Autonomy case study.
>Complete the Applying the Four Principles case study task by organizing case data in a four-box chart and writing a Christian worldview evaluation of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice.
PHI-413V: Ethical and Spiritual Decision Making in Health Care – Week 4 Discussion
Christian Hope, Suffering, and End-of-Life Decisions
In the week following the “Applying the Four Principles” case study, students are likely to engage in a graded discussion that focuses on how Christian hope and beliefs about suffering inform end-of-life decisions in clinical practice. For this discussion, you may be asked to write an initial post of 300–400 words in which you describe a hypothetical or real-world scenario involving serious illness, then analyze how a Christian worldview might approach decisions about life-sustaining treatment, palliative care, and communication with family. You could be required to reference at least two topic study materials, including Scripture or Christian theological sources, and to address how the four principles continue to shape ethical reasoning in the case. Replies to two or more peers’ posts may invite you to compare different Christian perspectives on hope, miracles, and medical limitation while maintaining respect for diverse beliefs and professional obligations.