When Must a Patient Seek Healthcare? Bringing the Perspectives of Islamic Jurists and Clinicians Into Dialogue

Abstract

Muslim physicians and Islamic jurists analyze the moral dimensions of biomedicine using different tools and processes. While the deliberations of these two classes of experts involve judgments about the deliverables of the other's respective fields, Islamic jurists and Muslim physicians rarely engage in discussions about the constructs and epistemic frameworks that motivate their analyses. The lack of dialogue creates gaps in knowledge and leads to imprecise guidance. In order to address these discursive and conceptual gaps we describe the sources of knowledge and reasoning employed by Islamic jurists and clinicians to resolve the question of when a patient must seek healthcare. As we examine both the scriptural evidence and legal reasoning of jurists and the types of medical evidence used by clinicians to address the same question, we draw attention to the epistemic frameworks and constructs at play and identify how constructs from one field may sharpen the deliberative exercises of the other. Hence our work advances discourses at the intersection of Islam and medicine and offers building blocks for a comprehensive Islamic framework that fully integrates the deliverables of medical science within the deliberations of Islamic jurists.

Jewish, Christian and Muslim theological perspectives about xenotransplantation

“…45,46 According to the majority view, seeking clinical treatment becomes ethically mandatory when the proposed therapy is certainly life-saving, in other words, it assuredly will save a patient's life. 47 The scientific evidence for XTx does not yet support the claim that the treatment is life-saving because xenografts have limited survival and even life-saving xenografted hearts have only sustained function for months. 48 Such limited longevity detracts from claiming it is a curative, life-saving procedure, and at present it might at best simply be a stop-gap intervention.…”

“…As XTx is a potential medical therapy it is important to recognize that, in general, Sunni Islamic law judges the seeking of medical treatment as permissible but non‐obligatory . According to the majority view, seeking clinical treatment becomes ethically mandatory when the proposed therapy is certainly life‐saving, in other words, it assuredly will save a patient's life . The scientific evidence for XTx does not yet support the claim that the treatment is life‐saving because xenografts have limited survival and even life‐saving xenografted hearts have only sustained function for months .…”

The ethics of organ donation, donation after circulatory determination of death, and xenotransplantation from an Islamic perspective

“…[69][70][71] The majority holds that seeking clinical treatment becomes obligatory only when the proposed therapy is perceived to be life-saving. 16,71,72 Currently, xenotransplantation cannot be considered a life-saving therapy because xenografts have limited survival. Illustratively, xenografted hearts (an organ that is assuredly necessary to live) have not sustained function beyond a few months.…”

“…As noted above, jurists tolerate such infringements because of benefits accrued . Additionally, Sunni Islamic law judges the seeking of medical treatment as permissible but non‐obligatory . The majority holds that seeking clinical treatment becomes obligatory only when the proposed therapy is perceived to be life‐saving .…”

“…Additionally, Sunni Islamic law judges the seeking of medical treatment as permissible but non‐obligatory . The majority holds that seeking clinical treatment becomes obligatory only when the proposed therapy is perceived to be life‐saving . Currently, xenotransplantation cannot be considered a life‐saving therapy because xenografts have limited survival.…”