MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801871432 · doi:10.22037/bhl.v1i3.19457

Principle of Nonmaleficence in Islamic Jurisprudence and law and its usage in Biomedical Jurisprudence

2017· article· en· W2801871432 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soheila Safaei, Mahmoud Abbasi

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth law journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsHarmJurisprudenceLawFiqhIslamHonestyVetoSociologyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsPhilosophyEngineeringSharia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.377 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207