If the patient refrains from medication after the doctor showed him the wise confidence that leaving medication or abstaining may lead to damage of a member of it or death, what is the ruling on that?
The majority of fuqaha 'went to the conclusion that if he did so he was considered sinful and sinful. If he died because of that, he is not considered to be a murderer for himself, because healing by medical intervention is not interrupted by his success, unlike the one who left food and drink until he died.
The patient refused to be treated in cases that require urgent surgical intervention, otherwise the results are severe, in which self-effacement destroys. God Almighty says: "Do not receive your hands to the destruction."
Some interpreters say in his interpretation of this verse: "Destruction is a source of death, destruction, destruction and destruction, that is, you do not take your own lives, and the right to consider the general meaning of the word is not for the reason. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, and among other things under the verse that enter the man in the war, and bear the army with the inability to get rid of, and the impact of the impact of the benefit of the mujahideen.
The meaning of this verse is that God Almighty forbids us to throw our hands into destruction.
Is it right for a patient at 50 years of age, for example, with a stroke in the heart to refuse treatment and we are in this scientific progress?
Is it right for a young patient with a large stroke to refuse treatment? Did she know that this would lead her to death?
Is it right for a patient who has a clot in the mitral valve to be refused a treatment? This is a fatal condition if not treated by surgery or a solvent for stroke.
Is it right for a patient with lymphoma Hodgkin to reject chemotherapy, knowing that the cure rate of the disease for five years up to 90%.
Is it right for a patient to put a stent in one of his heart's arteries to stop abruptly when taking a drug called Plavix that prevents the obstruction of the stent, suddenly ruptures the artery and results in a heart clot (myocardial infarction) or death to allow God.
If one of these people died because of his refusal to treatment and he knows that the cure rate is very high, God willing, not to throw his hands to destruction? Is he a murderer for himself or not?
How do we compare this to a woman with epilepsy? We know that there was no cure for epilepsy except in the 20th century, and that epileptic seizures do not lead to death unless there is an epileptic seizure when driving his injured car (even in this case he may not die).
An example of this is that Shaykh came to the pilgrimage season, and was injured in the crowd of Arafa acute heart attack has lost consciousness, and rushed to a hospital in Makkah, Vsaaf good ambulance until the prospects, and improved health, and gathered strength.
When he knew what had happened, he was furious, and his rebellion was so revolting that people would return to Nubia. He said: It is only for Hajj that he wants to die, and he is haraam. The doctors warned that they would return to their "terrible act" if they were injured again!
Indeed, Nubia came back, and the doctor saw that he had no right to treat him against his will, so he left him until he died.
Did the doctor who took the decision to prevent medical intervention get hurt?
Another patient with end-stage renal failure, and under dialysis treatment, decided not to go for his usual treatment (three times a week) despite the urgency of his children. He declared that he did not want treatment even if it led to his death.
The doctor said that he was not sure of the legitimacy of the refusal, and the testimony of the witnesses, and ordered the patient and I have had urgent dialysis several times.
Two days later the patient woke up, recovered his health to a large extent, and admitted that he did not want treatment, but now he thanks the doctor who insisted on his treatment!
The majority of fuqaha 'went to the conclusion that if he did so he was considered sinful and sinful. If he died because of that, he is not considered to be a murderer for himself, because healing by medical intervention is not interrupted by his success, unlike the one who left food and drink until he died.
The patient refused to be treated in cases that require urgent surgical intervention, otherwise the results are severe, in which self-effacement destroys. God Almighty says: "Do not receive your hands to the destruction."
Some interpreters say in his interpretation of this verse: "Destruction is a source of death, destruction, destruction and destruction, that is, you do not take your own lives, and the right to consider the general meaning of the word is not for the reason. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, and among other things under the verse that enter the man in the war, and bear the army with the inability to get rid of, and the impact of the impact of the benefit of the mujahideen.
The meaning of this verse is that God Almighty forbids us to throw our hands into destruction.
Is it right for a patient at 50 years of age, for example, with a stroke in the heart to refuse treatment and we are in this scientific progress?
Is it right for a young patient with a large stroke to refuse treatment? Did she know that this would lead her to death?
Is it right for a patient who has a clot in the mitral valve to be refused a treatment? This is a fatal condition if not treated by surgery or a solvent for stroke.
Is it right for a patient with lymphoma Hodgkin to reject chemotherapy, knowing that the cure rate of the disease for five years up to 90%.
Is it right for a patient to put a stent in one of his heart's arteries to stop abruptly when taking a drug called Plavix that prevents the obstruction of the stent, suddenly ruptures the artery and results in a heart clot (myocardial infarction) or death to allow God.
If one of these people died because of his refusal to treatment and he knows that the cure rate is very high, God willing, not to throw his hands to destruction? Is he a murderer for himself or not?
How do we compare this to a woman with epilepsy? We know that there was no cure for epilepsy except in the 20th century, and that epileptic seizures do not lead to death unless there is an epileptic seizure when driving his injured car (even in this case he may not die).
An example of this is that Shaykh came to the pilgrimage season, and was injured in the crowd of Arafa acute heart attack has lost consciousness, and rushed to a hospital in Makkah, Vsaaf good ambulance until the prospects, and improved health, and gathered strength.
When he knew what had happened, he was furious, and his rebellion was so revolting that people would return to Nubia. He said: It is only for Hajj that he wants to die, and he is haraam. The doctors warned that they would return to their "terrible act" if they were injured again!
Indeed, Nubia came back, and the doctor saw that he had no right to treat him against his will, so he left him until he died.
Did the doctor who took the decision to prevent medical intervention get hurt?
Another patient with end-stage renal failure, and under dialysis treatment, decided not to go for his usual treatment (three times a week) despite the urgency of his children. He declared that he did not want treatment even if it led to his death.
The doctor said that he was not sure of the legitimacy of the refusal, and the testimony of the witnesses, and ordered the patient and I have had urgent dialysis several times.
Two days later the patient woke up, recovered his health to a large extent, and admitted that he did not want treatment, but now he thanks the doctor who insisted on his treatment!