MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Islamic Bioethics: Palliative Sedation

2024· reference-entry· en· W4404509493 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed al‐Awamer, Isamme AlFayyad, Mohammed F. Abosoudah

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion · 2024
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsIslamPalliative sedationSedationPalliative careMedicinePsychologyTraditional medicinePolitical scienceAnesthesiaNursingPhilosophyLawTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Palliative care aims to relieve the suffering of terminally ill patients and their families through the effective management of pain and other distressing symptoms. Depending on symptom severity, different levels of sedation are required to palliate symptoms effectively. However, Islamic jurisprudence forbids and criminalizes any act intended to terminate a patient’s life. Jurists have attempted to determine the permissibility of palliative sedation from an Islamic perspective while referencing the ethical principles and legal maxims of the Islamic jurisprudence (Al-Qawāʿid al-Fiqhiyah). Palliative sedation may be permissible as a last resort for imminently dying Muslim patients based on the principle of necessity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Research Encyclopedia of ReligionSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207