Reading Time: 11 minutes

PHI-413V Healing and Autonomy Guide

The PHI-413V Healing and Autonomy case study is a benchmark assignment in GCU’s Ethical and Spiritual Decision Making in Health Care course. It asks you to analyze the ethical dilemma facing Mike — a Christian father who delays his son James’s kidney treatment to seek spiritual healing — through the lens of principlism (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice) and the Christian worldview on sickness, health, and medical intervention. The deliverable is a structured response across three sections: a 200–250-word analysis of autonomy, a 400–500-word discussion of the Christian perspective, and a 200–250-word proposal for a spiritual needs assessment. This guide walks through every section, explains the four principles in context, and shows a fully worked example you can use as a reference.

What Is the Healing and Autonomy Case Study?

The Healing and Autonomy case study is a benchmark assignment in PHI-413V that presents a scenario in which Mike, a devout Christian, must decide whether to pursue medical treatment or rely on prayer for his eight-year-old son James, who has kidney failure. The case is designed to surface the tension between parental autonomy, the child’s welfare, faith-based decision-making, and the clinician’s ethical obligations.

Students complete two related deliverables across the course. In Topic 3, you fill in a chart organizing the case data according to the four principles of principlism — autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice — using the four-boxes method. In Topic 5, you write the benchmark paper: three structured responses that apply those principles within the Christian worldview and propose a spiritual needs assessment.

This is one of the highest-weighted assignments in the course and is tied to a program competency. It requires both ethical reasoning and theological engagement, which is why students find it more demanding than a typical discussion post.

What Are the Four Principles of Principlism?

The four principles of principlism — developed by Beauchamp and Childress (2019) — provide the ethical framework the assignment requires you to use. Each principle asks a different question about the case.

Autonomy asks whether Mike has the right to make treatment decisions for James based on his own values and beliefs. As James’s legal guardian, Mike holds decisional authority, but autonomy is not absolute when a child’s life is at stake.

Beneficence asks what action would produce the best outcome for James. Pursuing effective medical treatment is the clearest path to beneficence; delaying treatment to attend a healing service introduces risk.

Nonmaleficence asks whether any action — or inaction — causes harm. Withholding dialysis caused James’s condition to worsen, which is a direct violation of nonmaleficence.

Justice asks whether resources are being allocated fairly. If James needs a kidney transplant and a donor kidney becomes available, questions of fair allocation arise — especially if another child is also waiting.

How Do You Answer the Autonomy Question?

You answer the autonomy question by arguing a clear position — should the physician allow Mike to continue making decisions that seem irrational and harmful, or would that disrespect patient autonomy? — and supporting it with ethical reasoning.

The strongest answers acknowledge the tension: Mike has a right to make decisions grounded in his faith, but that right is limited when the patient is a child who cannot consent independently. The physician’s role is to engage Mike in shared decision-making, not to override his autonomy unilaterally.

A spiritual needs assessment at this point would help the clinician understand why Mike is choosing prayer over treatment and find common ground — perhaps involving a chaplain or pastor — rather than creating an adversarial dynamic.

How Do You Write the Christian Worldview Section?

You write the Christian worldview section by addressing three sub-questions: How should a Christian think about sickness and health? How should a Christian think about medical intervention? What should Mike do?

The Christian narrative frames sickness as a consequence of the fall (Genesis 3), not as punishment for individual sin (John 9:1–3). The body is described as a “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19–20), which creates a stewardship obligation to seek care. Scripture contains examples of God working through medical means — Isaiah prescribed a poultice for Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:7), and Jesus affirmed the role of physicians (Mark 2:17).

The key theological argument: faith and medicine are not mutually exclusive. Mike can pray for healing and authorize treatment simultaneously. Delaying treatment is not a greater act of faith — it is a failure of stewardship that places James at avoidable risk. A mature Christian perspective treats medical care as one of the means through which God works.

This section carries the most weight (400–500 words), so develop it with specific Scripture references and connect each one back to the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence.

How Do You Propose a Spiritual Needs Assessment?

You propose a spiritual needs assessment by explaining how a structured tool — such as the FICA Spiritual History (Faith, Importance, Community, Address) — would help the physician understand Mike’s beliefs and tailor interventions accordingly.

The assessment transforms a potential conflict between physician and parent into a collaborative partnership. It reveals whether Mike has a faith community that can provide support, whether his understanding of healing allows room for medical intervention, and how the care team can incorporate prayer and pastoral care into James’s treatment plan alongside the medical interventions.

Emphasize that the assessment addresses holistic needs — body, mind, and spirit — which is exactly what the rubric rewards.

How Is the Healing and Autonomy Benchmark Graded?

The benchmark is graded on the depth and accuracy of your ethical analysis, the quality of your theological engagement, and whether you address all three sections within the specified word counts. The rubric typically rewards:

• Clear application of all four principles to the case.
• Specific Scripture references that support your argument, not generic statements about faith.
• A defined position on the autonomy question with a rationale.
• A concrete spiritual assessment proposal with a named tool or method.
• Proper APA documentation of sources, even though the body does not require strict APA formatting.

PHI-413V Healing and Autonomy Example

For Reference Use Only: This worked sample is provided as a study reference and example only. Need a custom Healing and Autonomy case analysis written to your own rubric? Reach out to us on WhatsApp for a fast response. Message us on WhatsApp: +1 564-544-6924

 

Benchmark — Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

 

[Student Name]

College of Nursing and Health Care Professions, Grand Canyon University

PHI-413V: Ethical and Spiritual Decision Making in Health Care

[Instructor Name]

[Due Date]

 

Patient’s Spiritual Needs: Case Analysis

Autonomy: Should the Physician Allow Mike to Continue Making Decisions? (200–250 words)

The physician should respect Mike’s autonomy as James’s legal guardian while simultaneously fulfilling the obligation to advocate for the child’s welfare. Under the principle of respect for autonomy, competent decision-makers have the right to accept or refuse treatment based on their own values and beliefs (Beauchamp & Childress, 2025). Mike’s decision to seek spiritual healing before pursuing medical treatment is grounded in his Christian faith, and dismissing it outright would disrespect his deeply held convictions.

However, autonomy is not absolute—it must be balanced against beneficence and nonmaleficence, particularly when the patient is a minor who cannot advocate for himself. James’s deteriorating condition introduces a threshold at which parental autonomy yields to the child’s right to receive life-sustaining care. The physician’s most appropriate response is to engage Mike in a shared decision-making conversation that honors his spiritual perspective while clearly communicating the medical urgency.

A spiritual needs assessment at this juncture would help the physician understand the beliefs informing Mike’s choices and identify common ground between faith and treatment (Canavera et al., 2024). Rather than framing the situation as faith versus medicine, the clinician can help Mike see that accepting medical intervention does not contradict trusting God but can be understood as exercising responsible stewardship of the life God has entrusted to his care.

The Christian Worldview on Sickness, Health, and Medical Intervention (400–500 words)

Within the Christian narrative, sickness and health are understood in the broader context of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. God created human beings in His image (Genesis 1:27), and the original design included wholeness and flourishing. The entrance of sin into the world through the fall introduced suffering, disease, and death as realities of the human condition (Romans 5:12). Sickness is therefore not a punishment for individual sin but a consequence of living in a fallen world—a distinction Jesus Himself made when He healed the man born blind and told His disciples that the blindness was not caused by anyone’s sin (John 9:1–3).

Because the body is described in Scripture as a “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19–20), Christians have a stewardship responsibility to care for it. This stewardship extends to seeking medical treatment when it is available and effective. The Bible contains numerous examples of God working through human agents and means to bring healing: the prophet Isaiah prescribed a poultice of figs for King Hezekiah’s illness (2 Kings 20:7), and Jesus acknowledged that “it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” (Mark 2:17), implicitly affirming the role of physicians. Medical intervention, in this view, is not a failure of faith but a legitimate instrument through which God’s healing purposes can be accomplished.

At the same time, Christianity affirms that ultimate healing belongs to God. Prayer for healing is commended in Scripture (James 5:14–15), and Christians are encouraged to trust in God’s sovereignty even when outcomes are uncertain. The tension Mike faces—between trusting God through prayer and seeking medical treatment for James—is a false dilemma from a mature Christian perspective. Faith and medicine are not mutually exclusive; a Christian can pray fervently for healing while simultaneously authorizing the best available medical care. The principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence support this integrated approach: doing good for James means pursuing every reasonable avenue of healing, and avoiding harm means not withholding effective treatment when the child’s life is at risk (Beauchamp & Childress, 2025).

Mike, as a Christian father, should reason that trusting God does not require rejecting the means God has provided. Delaying dialysis to attend a healing service placed James at medical risk, and the subsequent worsening of his condition illustrates the real-world consequences of treating prayer and medicine as an either/or choice. A more theologically grounded response would be to authorize treatment immediately while continuing to pray, recognizing that God can work through the hands of physicians just as readily as through miraculous intervention. This approach truly honors both beneficence—actively pursuing James’s good—and nonmaleficence—refusing to allow preventable harm through inaction.

Spiritual Needs Assessment and Appropriate Interventions (200–250 words)

A spiritual needs assessment would help the physician understand the specific beliefs, values, and spiritual resources that shape Mike’s decision-making, enabling more effective communication and more appropriate interventions for James and his family. Tools such as the FICA Spiritual History (Faith, Importance, Community, Address) provide a structured, respectful framework for clinicians to explore a patient’s or caregiver’s spiritual life without imposing judgment (Canavera et al., 2024).

By learning that Mike’s reluctance to pursue treatment stems from a sincere belief in divine healing rather than indifference or neglect, the physician can tailor the conversation accordingly—perhaps involving a hospital chaplain or Mike’s own pastor to explore how faith and medical care can work together. The assessment also reveals whether the family has a faith community that can provide emotional and practical support during James’s treatment, which is a protective factor for both the patient and the caregiver.

For James, understanding the family’s spiritual framework allows the care team to incorporate prayer, pastoral visits, and age-appropriate spiritual support into his care plan, addressing his holistic needs rather than treating only the physical disease. Ultimately, the spiritual needs assessment transforms a potential conflict between the physician and Mike into a collaborative partnership grounded in mutual respect, shared concern for James’s welfare, and a recognition that healing encompasses body, mind, and spirit.

References

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2025). Principles of biomedical ethics (9th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Canavera, K., Eshleman, K., Crochet, E., & Ciesielski, H. (2024). Faith, medical decision making, and coping: Bioethics considerations for pediatric psychologists. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 12(4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000533

Polakova, K., Ahmed, F., Vlckova, K., & Brearley, S. G. (2023). Parents’ experiences of being involved in medical decision-making for their child with a life-limiting condition: A systematic review with narrative synthesis. Palliative Medicine, 38(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163231214414

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the New International Version (NIV).

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Treating faith and medicine as opposites — the rubric rewards integration, not an either/or framing.
• Skipping Scripture references in the Christian worldview section.
• Writing vaguely about autonomy without taking a clear position.
• Ignoring the word-count ranges, which the rubric enforces.
• Omitting a specific assessment tool in the spiritual needs section.

Other GCU RN-to-BSN Course Guides

Taking other courses this term? We have complete assignment guides with worked examples for every major GCU RN-to-BSN course:

• HLT-362V Applied Statistics for Health Care — every assignment with worked examples, Excel formulas, and APA papers covering descriptive statistics, sampling distributions, article analysis, and correlation vs. causation.

More course guides (NRS-465, NRS-445, NRS-425, and others) are publishing soon — bookmark this page or message us on WhatsApp to get notified.

PHI-413V Healing and Autonomy FAQ

What are the four principles in the Healing and Autonomy case study?

The four principles are autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice; the framework of principlism developed by Beauchamp and Childress. The assignment asks you to analyze Mike’s decision-making and James’s care through each of these ethical lenses.

Does the Healing and Autonomy benchmark require APA format?

The body of the assignment does not require strict APA formatting, but solid academic writing is expected and all sources must be documented using APA formatting guidelines. You should include in-text citations and a reference list.

What Bible verses should I use for the Christian worldview section?

Key verses include Genesis 1:27 (created in God’s image), 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 (body as temple), James 5:14–15 (prayer for healing), 2 Kings 20:7 (God working through medical means), Mark 2:17 (Jesus affirming physicians), and John 9:1–3 (sickness is not punishment for individual sin).

What is a spiritual needs assessment?

A spiritual needs assessment is a structured tool that helps clinicians explore a patient’s or caregiver’s faith, values, and spiritual resources. The FICA Spiritual History is a widely used example that covers Faith, Importance, Community, and how the patient wants spiritual needs Addressed in their care.

How many words should the Healing and Autonomy benchmark be?

The benchmark has three sections with specific word counts: 200–250 words on autonomy, 400–500 words on the Christian worldview and medical intervention, and 200–250 words on the spiritual needs assessment. The total is approximately 800–1,000 words.

About the Author

This guide was prepared by the Gradevia academic team, specialists in nursing and health-sciences coursework support for students at GCU, WGU, Walden, and Liberty University. Our writers hold graduate degrees in nursing, public health, bioethics, and theology. We focus on helping busy working nurses understand the method, not just the answer.

Article Update Log

• June 19, 2026 — Initial publication. Guide to PHI-413V Healing and Autonomy benchmark: the four principles of principlism applied to Mike and James’s case, the Christian worldview on sickness and medical intervention with Scripture references, spiritual needs assessment using the FICA tool, grading notes, common mistakes, and FAQ.