Search published articles



Saeed Nazari Tavakkoli, Saeed Ghadirzadeh Toosi,
Volume 17, Issue 1 (3-2024)
Abstract

Treating patients whose lives are in danger or threatened by irreparable harm, is an obligatory act. However, sometimes, due to old age, the severity of the disease, or the lack of definitive treatment, the patient faces a situation where, according to the diagnosis of the medical staff, starting or continuing the treatment has no effect on patient recovery, or the effect is so insignificant that is ignored in medical practice. This study was conducted using a descriptive and analytical method based on library resources to compare “futile treatment” in medical ethics with “Israf” (extravagance) in Islamic jurisprudence so as to indicate the level of conceptual compatibility between these two concepts. Moreover, considering the illegitimacy of extravagance in jurisprudential teachings, it was attempted to explore whether it is illegitimate, according to Islamic rules, to perform futile treatment. To do so, first, futile treatment and its characteristics in medical texts were defined. Second, the ethical considerations of performing such treatment were explained based on the teachings of medical ethics. Third, extravagance was analyzed in terms of concept, topic, and sentence by referring to valid lexical, jurisprudential, narrative, and interpretative resources. Finally, based on a comparative study, the level of compatibility of futile treatment with extravagance was investigated. The findings of this study showed futile treatment is an example of extravagance as it causes the waste of personal or public property, lacks rational purpose, and does not lead to patient recovery or promotion of health status. Therefore, futile treatment is not considered an obligatory act but even an illegitimate one as it is a clear example of extravagance. In addition to punishment in the afterlife, it entails civil liability as it results in the loss of others’ property.

Fatemeh Fallah Tafti, Hamidreza Mohammadi,
Volume 18, Issue 1 (3-2025)
Abstract

This Article has no Abstract.
Sayyed Mohammad Taghi Hosseini Vardaniani, Dr Ahmad Salami, Sayyed Morteza Hosseini, Jannat Mashayekhi,
Volume 18, Issue 1 (3-2025)
Abstract

The vegetative state is a condition in contemporary medicine that raises numerous ethical, jurisprudential, and legal challenges. The most fundamental question when confronting this condition concerns whether individuals in such a state are considered alive or deceased, as subsequent rulings and implications are typically contingent upon the answer to this question. Some contemporary Islamic jurists, drawing upon the jurisprudential division of life into “stable life” and “unstable life”, have deemed individuals in a vegetative state to be deceased, given their lack of volition and consciousness. This study argues that the concept of “unstable life” does not apply to these individuals, particularly in cases of persistent and chronic vegetative states where the possibility of regaining consciousness, however remote, exists. Furthermore, the continued function of the brainstem and the non-fulfillment of the medical and legal criteria for brain death in many systems affirm that the designation of “deceased” is incorrect. From an Islamic perspective, the definitive separation of the soul from the body, which is the condition for the occurrence of death, cannot be ascertained in the vegetative state. Ultimately, in circumstances of doubt regarding the life or death of a person in a vegetative state, this uncertainty constitutes a “case-specific doubt”, and by applying the legal principle of “presumption of continued life”, the individual must be deemed alive and all the corresponding legal and religious consequences of life must be accorded to them.


Page 1 from 1     

© 2026 , Tehran University of Medical Sciences, CC BY-NC 4.0

Designed & Developed by: Yektaweb