General approaches to ethical reasoning in Islamic biomedical ethics discourse.

Hamideh Moosapour, Jannat Mashayekhi, Farzaneh Zahedi, Akbar Soltani, Bagher Larijani

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hamideh MoosapourPh.D Candidate in Philosophy of Medicine and Medical Ethics, Evidence Based Medicine Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran .

Jannat MashayekhiPh.D Candidate in Medical Ethics, Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Medical Ethics, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Farzaneh ZahediDirector of Medical Ethics Research Group, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Akbar SoltaniProfessor, Evidence Based Medicine Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran .

Bagher LarijaniProfessor, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran .

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Islamic and non-religious ethics discourses have similarities and differences at the levels of meta-, normative, and applied ethics (e.g. biomedical ethics). Mainstream biomedical ethics (MBME) uses the language of contemporary, non-religious, Western ethics. Significant effort has been dedicated to comparing Islamic biomedical ethics (IBME) and MBME in terms of meta- and normative ethical positions, and final decisions on practical ethical issues have been reached. However, less attention has been given to comparing the general approaches of the two aforementioned discourses to ethical reasoning. Furthermore, IBME uses different languages to approach ethical reasoning, but identification and conceptualization of these approaches are among the important gaps in the literature. The aim of this study was to conceptualize general approaches to ethical reasoning in IBME. Through review and content analysis of the existing literature and the comparison between the languages employed by IBME and MBME, an inductive distinction have been made. The languages used in conceptualized approaches include the followings: (

Indexed as

Ethical decision-makingEthical reasoningIslamic biomedical ethicsIslamic biomedical ethics principles

Identifiers

PMID31346388

PMCPMC6642444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.