What are the rulings on providing resuscitation to patients in light of resource scarcity, and in which cases is it permissible to remove resuscitation devices?

Medical jurisprudential issues are problems that cannot be definitively answered with detailed regulations; rather, they are subject to ijtihad (independent reasoning) and tarjih (weighing of evidence), while acknowledging differing opinions, similar to the conflict between two harms.

Accordingly, the Islamic Fiqh Academy has decided that determining a hopeless case is left to the doctors' assessment, the available medical capabilities, and the patients' conditions, recommending collective ijtihad to prioritize treatment.

It is preferable to apply the principle of "first come, first served" in utilizing medical equipment. Whoever comes first has a greater right to it, and the equipment should not be removed from them unless all functions of their brain have ceased according to doctors' reports. If there is a tie in precedence, priority is given to the patient whose condition is critical or whose recovery is hoped for. As for prioritizing based on religion or righteousness, this is not considered in public hospitals. If there is no acceptable preference, recourse is made to drawing lots, distinguishing between lots for benefit and lots for throwing into perdition.

The affirmation of two trustworthy doctors is sufficient to determine cases for removing life support equipment. There is no blame upon a patient for refusing life support equipment if its benefit is presumptive (dhanniyah), but it is not permissible to abandon it if its benefit is certain (qati'iyah) and abandoning it would lead to demise.