On the death of intention and the dehumanisation of medicine: an Islamic ethical reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
challenge what they describe as the 'medicalisation of war', cautioning against judging conflict through the lens of public health. Their argument contributes a provocation to medical ethics by questioning the limits of moral medicine under conditions of political violence. This reflection engages their position through an Islamic ethical framework, where niyyah (intention) functions as the axis of moral agency and the condition for ethical clarity. Within this framework, to heal is both an act of compassion and an epistemic stance that preserves the visibility of human dignity, or karāmah, amid structural violence. When the intention to heal gives way to the intention to justify, medicine risks becoming a moral instrument of power rather than a sanctuary of care. Drawing on Islamic morality, this reflection argues that dehumanisation often emerges from procedural reasoning that makes suffering administratively invisible. Medicine's moral vocation, in this view, lies in sustaining intention as an act of resistance to abstraction. The enduring question is not whether healthcare can adjudicate the ethics of war, but whether societies can preserve the moral consciousness that makes healing possible at all.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".