Ruling on withholding treatment if doctors see no benefit

Question:
Some cases come up with doctors. For example, when a baby is born prematurely in the sixth month of pregnancy, and because there are many medical complications if the child survives, after the power of Allah and then the respiratory system, there is a medical rule that says: if the child’s weight is less than 750 grams, the respiratory machine is not used, which is, by the grace of Allah, a helper for the child to live, 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 may be disabled later? Or should we install this machine for him, along with what happens to him afterwards?

Answer:
The principle among the scholars of knowledge is that treatment is not obligatory, but rather recommended. Treating the sick is recommended, not obligatory. So whether he is treated by surgery, an operation, pills, or a diet, it is all recommended, not obligatory. So 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 the interest is in not treating him, 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, with no benefit, and a squandering of money and time.