Physician-Assisted Suicide and Other Forms of Euthanasia in Islamic Spiritual Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The muteness in the Qur'an about suicide due to intolerable pain and a firm opposition to suicide in the hadith literature formed a strong opinion among Muslims that neither repentance nor the suffering of the person can remove the sin of suicide or mercy 'killing' (al-qatl al-rahim), even if these acts are committed with the purpose of relieving suffering and pain. Some interpretations of the Islamic sources even give advantage to murderers as opposed to people who commit suicide because the murderers, at least, may have opportunity to repent for their sin. However, people who commit suicide are 'labeled' for losing faith in the afterlife without a chance to repent for their act. This paper claims that Islamic spiritual care can help people make decisions that may impact patients, family members, health care givers and the whole community by responding to questions such as 'What is the Islamic view on death?', 'What is the Islamic response to physician-assisted suicide and other forms of euthanasia?', 'What are the religious and moral underpinnings of these responses in Islam?'
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".