The Four Arguments Analysis Method is a tool developed by clinical ethicists used to examine clinical encounters. This method provides a coherent and organized framework for gathering information regarding the meeting in order to perform the analysis. The method is organized into four parts: Medical Indications, Patient Preferences, Quality of Life and Contextual Characteristics. We can organize the information related to this case study using the Four Argument Method starting with the Medical Indications. Maria, a 20-year-old woman, was involved in a car accident. She has a history of sickle cell disease and is currently twenty-five weeks pregnant with her first child. Initially Maria presents with rather stable vital signs. He presents with tachypnea and complains of severe abdominal cramps, weakness, dizziness and pain in the left shoulder. She is neurologically intact, with lung sounds within defined parameters. Maria's condition changes and she begins to show signs and symptoms of internal bleeding. This is a life-threatening condition. The problem is critical and can be resolved with a transfusion and surgery. The goal of the transfusion would be to replace the blood loss and restore vascular volume, while the goal of the surgery would be to repair the hemorrhage. If the bleeding is corrected promptly and without complications, the chances of success are quite high. There is no plan in place to account for treatment failure. Medical treatment in this case could not only save this patient's life but also that of her unborn child. Further harm to Maria and her baby could be avoided if she accepted the treatment. The next area to consider is Patient Preferences. At the center of the paper is non-maleficence, or the intent to "do no harm". They know that denying treatment for religious reasons will be potentially fatal for both. While Maria acts out of loyalty to her religious beliefs, the medical staff acts out of loyalty to the patient's well-being and that of her unborn child. It would be unfair if no party acted on behalf of that child. In conclusion, healthcare providers in this case must pursue every option to provide life-saving care to this child. This may result in legal action. If it were all up to Maria, providers might try to influence her decision, but ultimately it would be up to her to refuse the suggested treatment. Because her decision impacts the child's life, providers are called upon to save that child. Works Cited Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 10 and 18 USC § 1841 et seq. (Cornell Law 2004).