Muslim perspectives on palliative care in perinatal and neonatal patients: a mini-review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muslims comprise nearly a quarter of the worldwide population, with significant populations in the United States, Canada, and Europe. As clinicians, it is important to be familiar with Islamic religious and cultural perspectives on medical treatment, life-prolonging measures and comfort and palliative care, but historically, this has been a gap in the literature. Recently, there have been multiple papers discussing Islamic bioethics, particularly in regards to end of life care in adults; however, there has been a lack of literature discussing the Islamic perspective on issues related to neonatal and perinatal end of life care. This paper uses clinical scenarios to review key relevant principles of Islamic law, discussing the primary and secondary sources used in formulating fatawa, including the Quran, hadith, qiyas, and ‘urf, and the importance of preservation of life and upholding of human dignity (karamah). Neonatal and perinatal scenarios are used to specifically explore the Islamic perspective on withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining measures and determining what constitutes an acceptable quality of life. In some Islamic cultures the expertise of the patient's physician is given significant weight in making these judgments, and as such, families may appreciate frank assessment of the situation by the clinical team. Because of the various factors involved in issuing religious ruling, or fatwa, there is a wide spectrum of opinions on these rulings, and physicians should be aware of these differences, seek counsel and guidance from local Islamic leaders, and support families in their decision-making process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".