Considering Futile Treatment as Extravagance and Approving its Illegitimacy: A Comparative Study of Medical Ethics and Islamic Jurisprudence

Treating patients whose lives are in danger or threatened by irreparable harm, is an obligatory act. However, sometimes, due to old age, the severity of the disease, or the lack of definitive treatment, the patient faces a situation where, according to the diagnosis of the medical staff, starting or continuing the treatment has no effect on patient recovery, or the effect is so insignificant that is ignored in medical practice. This study was conducted using a descriptive and analytical method based on library resources to compare “futile treatment” in medical ethics with “Israf” (extravagance) in Islamic jurisprudence so as to indicate the level of conceptual compatibility between these two concepts. Moreover, considering the illegitimacy of extravagance in jurisprudential teachings, it was attempted to explore whether it is illegitimate, according to Islamic rules, to perform futile treatment. To do so, first, futile treatment and its characteristics in medical texts were defined. Second, the ethical considerations of performing such treatment were explained based on the teachings of medical ethics. Third, extravagance was analyzed in terms of concept, topic, and sentence by referring to valid lexical, jurisprudential, narrative, and interpretative resources. Finally, based on a comparative study, the level of compatibility of futile treatment with extravagance was investigated. The findings of this study showed futile treatment is an example of extravagance as it causes the waste of personal or public property, lacks rational purpose, and does not lead to patient recovery or promotion of health status. Therefore, futile treatment is not considered an obligatory act but even an illegitimate one as it is a clear example of extravagance. In addition to punishment in the afterlife, it entails civil liability as it results in the loss of others’ property.