MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736764041 · doi:10.22037/bhl.v1i1.16818

Islamic Bioethics and Secular Bioethics and Interaction between them

2017· article· en· W2736764041 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmoud Abbasi, Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth law journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsBioethicsSecularismIslamIdeologyPhilosophy of medicineMedical lawMaterialismEpistemologySociologyLawSocial scienceEnvironmental ethicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyMedicinePoliticsAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0160.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.357
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth law journalSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207