Principle of Nonmaleficence in Islamic Jurisprudence and law and its usage in Biomedical Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim : The principle of nonmaleficence is one of the four principles of bioethics. This principle, along with other principles of bioethics has been set as a moral code and guide in the deployment of new biological technologies, especially new achievements in the medical field. The principle of nonmaleficence states that the use of new technologies should not cause injury to any person of peoples, human beings and even nature and animals. The aim of this review is to recognize this principle in the holy religion of Islam that has a very large range and a long history, which is coincided with its emergence and in the Islamic jurisprudence and law it's called la-zarar act (the rule of no harm). Materials and Methods : In this review, using the keywords of the principle of nonmaleficence, the rule of no harm, self-harm, and to ward off likely harm we searched for relevant literature in interpretations of the Holy Quran, narrative texts, juridical reference texts and databases of Google Scholar, SID, Magiran, and NoorMags and related articles were studied. Ethical Considerations : Honesty and ethics have been observed in searching and referencing. Findings : The principle of nonmaleficence governs over the humans' all the personal and social relationships and interactions as an inclusive rule and Islam gives veto power to this principle over the other laws and regulations. This principle which is also presented as an ethical principle also includes the principle of nonmaleficence determined in the bioethics of today's global society, but it has quite a different scope and principles. Conclusion : Based on the principle of nonmaleficence in Islamic Jurisprudence and law and based on wisdom as using medical and biotechnology and testing and research, the human and mankind should not be damaged at all and even if there is a probability of loss or damage, the caution should be made and the harm should be prevented. This principle is general and includes self-harm, too. Citation: Safaei S. Abbasi M. Principle of Nonmaleficence in Islamic Jurisprudence and law and its usage in Biomedical Jurisprudence. Bioeth Health Law J. 2017; 1(3):13-18.
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 | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".