What is the ruling on medical treatment when its effect is expected to be weak?

Question:
Some cases pass through the doctors: for example, when a child is born before its due date—in the sixth month of pregnancy—and because many medical complications occur if the child survives, and that is after the power of Allah , then through the respiratory system. Therefore, there is a medical law that states: if the child's weight is less than seven hundred and fifty grams, the respiratory system, which is by the grace of Allah a helper for the child to live, does not function, despite the expected complications. So, is it permissible to leave the child without additional assistance that costs the patient and the doctor a lot of effort, time, and money—if money is required—given the high probability that the child will not survive, and that he will be disabled later? Or should this machine be attached to him despite what happens to him afterwards?

Answer:
The rule according to the scholars of knowledge: that treatment is not obligatory, it is recommended. Treating the sick is recommended and not obligatory, whether he is treated by surgery, an operation, pills, or a diet, they are all recommended, they are not obligatory. If he refuses treatment, there is no blame on him.
So if the doctors see that it is in the interest to treat this child, they do so, and if they see that it is in the interest not to treat, they leave it, and there is no blame in that. The ruling revolves around the predominant interest. If it is more likely that the treatment will benefit, there is no harm, and if it is more likely that it will not benefit, there is no harm in leaving it; because it is a waste, no benefit, a waste of money, and a waste of time.