Benchmark – Applying the Four Principles: Case Study
Course Information
Course Code: PHI-413V
Course Title: Ethical and Spiritual Decision Making in Health Care
Level: BSN
Term: Spring 2026
Weight: 25%
Due Date: End of Topic 3
Submission: Via Learning Management System
Assessment Description
This assignment will incorporate a common practical tool in helping clinicians begin to ethically analyze a case. Organizing the data in this way will help you apply the four principles and four boxes approach. Based on the “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” and other required topic Resources, you will complete the “Applying the Four Principles: Case Study” document that includes the following:
Part 1: Chart
This chart will formalize the four principles and four boxes approach 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.
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.
Requirements
- Remember to support your responses with the topic Resources.
- APA style is not required, but solid academic writing is expected.
- You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
- Benchmark Information: This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies: BS in Health Sciences 1.2; BS Nursing (RN to BSN) 5.2. Assess for the spiritual needs and provide appropriate interventions for individuals, families, and groups.
Directions
Read “Case Study: Healing and Autonomy” as well as the topic Resources. Using the chart and questions in the “Applying the Four Principles: Case Study” document, complete the assignment. The completed chart and evaluation questions will be submitted as one document.
Rubric
| Criteria | Percentage | Excellent (90.00-100.00%) | Good (80.00-89.00%) | Fair (70.00-79.00%) | Poor (0.00-69.00%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1: Organizing Data According to Ethical Principle of Autonomy | 15.0% | Organizing data according to autonomy is extremely thorough and thoughtful. Data are well organized and clearly demonstrate the principle of autonomy. | Organizing data according to autonomy is thorough and thoughtful. Data are organized and demonstrate the principle of autonomy. | Organizing data according to autonomy is present. Data are ordered and provided. Data touch on the principle of autonomy and/or are somewhat organized. | Organizing data according to autonomy is not present or is incorrect. |
| Part 1: Organizing Data According to Ethical Principle of Beneficence | 15.0% | Organizing data according to beneficence is extremely thorough and thoughtful. Data are well organized and clearly demonstrate the principle of beneficence. | Organizing data according to beneficence is thorough and thoughtful. Data are organized and demonstrate the principle of beneficence. | Organizing data according to beneficence is present. Data are ordered and provided. Data touch on the principle of beneficence and/or are somewhat organized. | Organizing data according to beneficence is not present or is incorrect. |
| Part 1: Organizing Data According to Ethical Principle of Nonmaleficence | 15.0% | Organizing data according to nonmaleficence is extremely thorough and thoughtful. Data are well organized and clearly demonstrate the principle of nonmaleficence. | Organizing data according to nonmaleficence is thorough and thoughtful. Data are organized and demonstrate the principle of nonmaleficence. | Organizing data according to nonmaleficence is present. Data are ordered and provided. Data touch on the principle of nonmaleficence and/or are somewhat organized. | Organizing data according to nonmaleficence is not present or is incorrect. |
| Part 1: Organizing Data According to Ethical Principle of Justice | 15.0% | Organizing data according to justice is extremely thorough and thoughtful. Data are well organized and clearly demonstrate the principle of justice. | Organizing data according to justice is thorough and thoughtful. Data are organized and demonstrate the principle of justice. | Organizing data according to justice is present. Data are ordered and provided. Data touch on the principle of justice and/or are somewhat organized. | Organizing data according to justice is not present or is incorrect. |
| Part 2: Evaluation of Priority Principle | 20.0% | Answer to question regarding the ranking or priority of principles with supporting information is extremely thorough and thoughtful. Answer is supported with thoughtful relation to case study and topic Resources. | Answer to question regarding the ranking or priority of principles with supporting information is thorough and thoughtful. Answer is supported but needs better relation to case study and topic Resources. | Answer to question regarding the ranking or priority of principles with supporting information is present. Answer is supported but relation to case study and topic Resources could be explained better. | Answer to question regarding the ranking or priority of principles with supporting information is not present or is incorrect. |
| Part 2: Evaluation of Application of Principlism | 20.0% | Answer to question regarding applying the four principles according to the Christian worldview with supporting information is extremely thorough and thoughtful. Answer is supported with thoughtful relation to case study and topic Resources. | Answer to question regarding applying the four principles according to the Christian worldview with supporting information is thorough and thoughtful. Answer is supported but needs better relation to case study and topic Resources. | Answer to question regarding applying the four principles according to the Christian worldview with supporting information is present. Answer is supported but relation to case study and topic Resources could be explained better. | Answer to question regarding applying the four principles according to the Christian worldview with supporting information is not present or is incorrect. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
| Documentation of Sources | 5.0% | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Medical indications organize patient data around beneficence and nonmaleficence to clarify treatment goals. Patient preferences capture details on autonomy through informed choices and consent processes. Quality of life factors integrate justice by considering broader impacts on well-being and resource allocation. Contextual features address systemic influences that affect ethical decisions in care. Research shows that applying principlism enhances resolution of dilemmas in clinical settings (Beauchamp and Childress, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780190270162.001.0001).
Topic Resources
- Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F., 2019. Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th ed. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780190270162.001.0001
- Gillon, R., 2018. Principlism or narrative ethics: must we choose between them? Medical Humanities, 44(2), pp.79-83. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2018-011488
- Page, K., 2019. The four principles: Can they be measured and do they predict ethical decision making? Nursing Ethics, 26(7-8), pp.2098-2109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733018802541
- Herring, J., 2020. Medical law and ethics. 8th ed. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198846956.001.0001
- Kotalik, J., 2021. Applying the four principles to public health ethics: Balancing justice and autonomy in pandemic response. Bioethics, 35(3), pp.217-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12832
Key Guarantees
- ✓ Plagiarism-Free
- ✓ On-Time Delivery
- ✓ Student-Based Prices
- ✓ Human Written Papers