What is your opinion regarding a doctor who prescribed a medical prescription for a patient, but the patient did not benefit from it; rather, his illness increased, while all doctors confirmed the correctness of this prescription for that illness?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : So, in the original matter, my Shaykh, the majority said that the treatment, I mean, the treatment without a doubt harmed me. I took the treatment, and you take treatment without benefiting, my Shaykh, what is in it?!
The Shaykh : Did harm occur?
The questioner : It is natural, my Shaykh, because the clot increased. I mean, I was taking medication from which I did not benefit, even though the doctor is skilled and considered one of the best doctors. We asked so-and-so and so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so, and all opinions said, absolutely, this is correct; this medication is for this condition. But note, my Shaykh, the point: that they all agreed that this medication is for this condition, even though scientifically, there is something that contradicts what is said.
The Shaykh : Mmm.
The questioner : Therefore, my Shaykh, the ruling of the specialists regarding that doctor is not always definitive, and in the majority of cases, their ruling will be correct.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Yes, and in the majority of cases. But if he is a general practitioner and he made a mistake, my view and the legal medical view say: there is nothing on him, because this is a general practitioner.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is understanding. Here, a question arises regarding what you mentioned about this treatment harming you.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Here, the harm may be that it was not a treatment!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Meaning.
The questioner : Cold... .
The Shaykh : Meaning, this patient who took this treatment and says it harmed him: if he is like a patient who did not take any treatment at all, his illness will increase with time because he neglected it and did not treat it. So, when you say now that it harmed you, is it of this kind because it was not a curative treatment, or was it a treatment that caused illness?
The questioner : No, no, it was not a curative treatment, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Ah, there is a difference between the two matters.
The questioner : There is a big difference, but the difference is deadly, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : The difference.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Deadly.
The Shaykh : Harsh.
The questioner : Meaning deadly.
The Shaykh : Deadly?
The questioner : Yes, my Shaykh. I mean, without blame, I have a clot in my leg here and a clot here. This clot here, my Shaykh, is one and a half centimeters. If it rises to one centimeter and enters the blood vessel, there is nothing that will stop it.
The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar.
The questioner : Straight to the heart, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar.
The questioner : So imagine what that means.
The Shaykh : May Allah grant you health.
The questioner : May Allah bless you. So, look at the difference, my Shaykh, where it is.
The student : No, here!
The questioner : I mean, the difference is great. Now, if we said, if we wanted to hold a trial in America, as they do in America, for every medical case they bring the doctor and try him for what he did wrong, he might be sentenced even for this month, which is a month in which you are supposed to know this new information, it is possible.
The student : Especially if it is in your specialty.
The questioner : It is possible, because it is in your specialty. Well done. But the original, my view, so that our brother does not come out with a result that I believe is incorrect, the Shaykh may find a solution religiously.
The student : The religious ruling.
The questioner : Yes. But I say, for the sake of our Shaykh: that according to this opinion, he should add to his question and clarify to our Shaykh, saying: that he intervened in something that does not concern him. You are a general practitioner and performed an appendectomy, or you are a general practitioner and intervened in an eye operation, or treated with something outside your specialty, and it appears to you that there is a type of risk. I mean, did you, as a doctor, when you treated that case, know that you were ignorant, or did you have a guess, or did the majority of your opinion prevail? I mean, my Shaykh, our knowledge and my knowledge of many matters, even in medicine, is that the majority of my opinion prevails that this medication is curative, or the majority of my opinion does not prevail that this medication is curative, I mean, so that the medical ruling corresponds with the religious ruling.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Otherwise, I would be held accountable at that time.
The Shaykh: Correct.
The questioner : So, the matters must be weighed for our brother, this doctor, with the same scale: did the majority of his opinion prevail when he wrote that prescription and diagnosed that illness? Was the majority of his opinion that this was his effort and this is what he intended, regardless of what the specialists say and what the other doctors say? Is that not so, my Shaykh? Am I not wrong?
The Shaykh : It is so. Abu Yahya wanted to say something.
The questioner : The most important thing we need to come out with is that all the data and facts they have reached in medicine are proving daily that they live for a very long time under incorrect information, and this is closer to this. Therefore, I mean, in my speech, I said that: what is customary as the accepted medication or the embodiment or the correct diagnosis, I mean, under all circumstances, this known medication, which has its reputation and status, is the excellent blood thinner. Then comes the science that they use to refute it, saying that this medication does not hide from me, this medication. And it has been proven very much that medications were given for treatment and it was proven that they are the opposite. This aspirin that you were telling me about yesterday, that it leads to the opposite, unless it is coated with a certain type of something. So, whatever we gather and claim and call scientific truths, even in medicine and in the matter of the human body and such, are just things.
The Shaykh : Probable in the majority.
The questioner : Things that are more likely, and they are subject to trial and error. And how many truths have been proven and reached a level close to certainty, only to be overturned and found to be corrupt. In this case, the truth and other similar cases, the decisive factor, in my estimation.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : This is, of course, in the current legal custom. Of course, in the Shari'ah, this matter is left, as Essam said, for the person to ask, and thus the case is understood in its entirety. But here, we have the technology.
The Shaykh : May Allah have mercy on you.
The questioner : In our countries here, there is always great protection for the doctor.
The Shaykh : Always what?
The questioner : There is great protection for the doctor.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : A doctor is rarely questioned, and a lawsuit is rarely filed, and a lawsuit against a doctor is rarely filed. This leniency toward doctors is what creates.
The Shaykh : Encourages.
The questioner : Many tragedies and encourages non-specialists and non-learned people. A specialist is synonymous with the word "learned." A specialist is a general practitioner; they all finished this first medical degree, but he studied and persevered and exerted effort and studied for other years. So, instead of focusing on the entire human body, he focused on a part of this body. Therefore, he became more knowledgeable, read cases, read their history. In other countries that have advanced scientifically and are called civilized and European countries: the citizen is encouraged to file a lawsuit against the doctor if he suspects, or if he believes, or even without believing, it is his right to file a lawsuit against the doctor if he is harmed. And there is, of course, a medical association, specialized lawyers, and so on. Therefore, the doctor is held accountable, and held to a strict account. If it is proven that he was negligent, or intended to cause harm, or that he did not exert the usual effort or the effort that he should exert, he is fined and held accountable, and so on. Therefore, the person there is careful not to speak about a matter he does not understand or know, or similar. But now, with us, matters are left to.
The Shaykh : Chance.
The Shaykh : Did harm occur?
The questioner : It is natural, my Shaykh, because the clot increased. I mean, I was taking medication from which I did not benefit, even though the doctor is skilled and considered one of the best doctors. We asked so-and-so and so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so, and all opinions said, absolutely, this is correct; this medication is for this condition. But note, my Shaykh, the point: that they all agreed that this medication is for this condition, even though scientifically, there is something that contradicts what is said.
The Shaykh : Mmm.
The questioner : Therefore, my Shaykh, the ruling of the specialists regarding that doctor is not always definitive, and in the majority of cases, their ruling will be correct.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Yes, and in the majority of cases. But if he is a general practitioner and he made a mistake, my view and the legal medical view say: there is nothing on him, because this is a general practitioner.
The Shaykh : Okay, this is understanding. Here, a question arises regarding what you mentioned about this treatment harming you.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Here, the harm may be that it was not a treatment!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Meaning.
The questioner : Cold... .
The Shaykh : Meaning, this patient who took this treatment and says it harmed him: if he is like a patient who did not take any treatment at all, his illness will increase with time because he neglected it and did not treat it. So, when you say now that it harmed you, is it of this kind because it was not a curative treatment, or was it a treatment that caused illness?
The questioner : No, no, it was not a curative treatment, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Ah, there is a difference between the two matters.
The questioner : There is a big difference, but the difference is deadly, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : The difference.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Deadly.
The Shaykh : Harsh.
The questioner : Meaning deadly.
The Shaykh : Deadly?
The questioner : Yes, my Shaykh. I mean, without blame, I have a clot in my leg here and a clot here. This clot here, my Shaykh, is one and a half centimeters. If it rises to one centimeter and enters the blood vessel, there is nothing that will stop it.
The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar.
The questioner : Straight to the heart, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar.
The questioner : So imagine what that means.
The Shaykh : May Allah grant you health.
The questioner : May Allah bless you. So, look at the difference, my Shaykh, where it is.
The student : No, here!
The questioner : I mean, the difference is great. Now, if we said, if we wanted to hold a trial in America, as they do in America, for every medical case they bring the doctor and try him for what he did wrong, he might be sentenced even for this month, which is a month in which you are supposed to know this new information, it is possible.
The student : Especially if it is in your specialty.
The questioner : It is possible, because it is in your specialty. Well done. But the original, my view, so that our brother does not come out with a result that I believe is incorrect, the Shaykh may find a solution religiously.
The student : The religious ruling.
The questioner : Yes. But I say, for the sake of our Shaykh: that according to this opinion, he should add to his question and clarify to our Shaykh, saying: that he intervened in something that does not concern him. You are a general practitioner and performed an appendectomy, or you are a general practitioner and intervened in an eye operation, or treated with something outside your specialty, and it appears to you that there is a type of risk. I mean, did you, as a doctor, when you treated that case, know that you were ignorant, or did you have a guess, or did the majority of your opinion prevail? I mean, my Shaykh, our knowledge and my knowledge of many matters, even in medicine, is that the majority of my opinion prevails that this medication is curative, or the majority of my opinion does not prevail that this medication is curative, I mean, so that the medical ruling corresponds with the religious ruling.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : Otherwise, I would be held accountable at that time.
The Shaykh: Correct.
The questioner : So, the matters must be weighed for our brother, this doctor, with the same scale: did the majority of his opinion prevail when he wrote that prescription and diagnosed that illness? Was the majority of his opinion that this was his effort and this is what he intended, regardless of what the specialists say and what the other doctors say? Is that not so, my Shaykh? Am I not wrong?
The Shaykh : It is so. Abu Yahya wanted to say something.
The questioner : The most important thing we need to come out with is that all the data and facts they have reached in medicine are proving daily that they live for a very long time under incorrect information, and this is closer to this. Therefore, I mean, in my speech, I said that: what is customary as the accepted medication or the embodiment or the correct diagnosis, I mean, under all circumstances, this known medication, which has its reputation and status, is the excellent blood thinner. Then comes the science that they use to refute it, saying that this medication does not hide from me, this medication. And it has been proven very much that medications were given for treatment and it was proven that they are the opposite. This aspirin that you were telling me about yesterday, that it leads to the opposite, unless it is coated with a certain type of something. So, whatever we gather and claim and call scientific truths, even in medicine and in the matter of the human body and such, are just things.
The Shaykh : Probable in the majority.
The questioner : Things that are more likely, and they are subject to trial and error. And how many truths have been proven and reached a level close to certainty, only to be overturned and found to be corrupt. In this case, the truth and other similar cases, the decisive factor, in my estimation.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : This is, of course, in the current legal custom. Of course, in the Shari'ah, this matter is left, as Essam said, for the person to ask, and thus the case is understood in its entirety. But here, we have the technology.
The Shaykh : May Allah have mercy on you.
The questioner : In our countries here, there is always great protection for the doctor.
The Shaykh : Always what?
The questioner : There is great protection for the doctor.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : A doctor is rarely questioned, and a lawsuit is rarely filed, and a lawsuit against a doctor is rarely filed. This leniency toward doctors is what creates.
The Shaykh : Encourages.
The questioner : Many tragedies and encourages non-specialists and non-learned people. A specialist is synonymous with the word "learned." A specialist is a general practitioner; they all finished this first medical degree, but he studied and persevered and exerted effort and studied for other years. So, instead of focusing on the entire human body, he focused on a part of this body. Therefore, he became more knowledgeable, read cases, read their history. In other countries that have advanced scientifically and are called civilized and European countries: the citizen is encouraged to file a lawsuit against the doctor if he suspects, or if he believes, or even without believing, it is his right to file a lawsuit against the doctor if he is harmed. And there is, of course, a medical association, specialized lawyers, and so on. Therefore, the doctor is held accountable, and held to a strict account. If it is proven that he was negligent, or intended to cause harm, or that he did not exert the usual effort or the effort that he should exert, he is fined and held accountable, and so on. Therefore, the person there is careful not to speak about a matter he does not understand or know, or similar. But now, with us, matters are left to.
The Shaykh : Chance.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.