Islamic Bioethics and Secular Bioethics and Interaction between them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim : Nowadays, we are observing the increasing development of sciences, particularly biological sciences and medicine. In the Muslim world, requirements of such scientific developments are taken into account without paying sufficient attention to their indigenous and Islamic aspects. Even international institutions are not properly informed of the need for the religious aspects of bioethical discourse in Muslim countries. Hence, this study attempts to address the in the ideologies of these two theories. Materials and Methods : In this review article, the keywords Islam, secularism, philosophy of ethics, ideology differences and ethical theories in secularism were searched in PubMed, SID and Google Scholar databases and the relevant literature was determined and analyzed. Ethical Considerations : Honesty and integrity were taken into consideration in searching, analyzing, and reporting the texts. Findings : Of the appropriate methods in analyzing the texts, one is the comparative study between the ideological and meta-ethical foundations of Islamic bioethics and secular bioethics, some of which are: the in the belief in the origin of existence and the Creator of existence; in the attitudes towards the totality of existence; in the views of the materialistic existence and the laws governing it. In addition, there exist anthropological in these two theories, among which we can refer to the in the attitudes towards the creation of human beings, the in the attitudes towards the dimensions of human existence, and life after death. Finally, we can also refer to the meta-ethical between Islamic bioethics and secular bioethics, including the difference in moral ontology, the difference in epistemology, semantics, as well as a number of similarities between Islamic bioethics and secular bioethics that are mostly normative similarities. Conclusion : Accepting the and similarities can be found as a present reality to begin a constructive bilateral dialogue and to introduce the fundamentals of Islamic bioethics. Citation : Abbasi M, Shamsi Gooshki E. Islamic Bioethics and Secular Bioethics and Interaction between them. Bioeth Health Law J . 2017; 1(1):11-18
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 | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".