Moreover, the issue of keeping secrets is not confined to medicine only.

In politics too, there are some secrets you have to keep from the society and even from your family. Telling a secret might kill people more than weapons would. Thus, this ethical norm is not confined to medicine.

It is an issue related to all human sciences. The mentality of the one that only thinks of personal gain has no place here, since we have to adopt the mentality of carrying a message.

As to the issue of whether the physician should tell his patient what his illness is, whether his case may be critical or not, it is not prohibited to do so in principle. But the doctor has to be humanitarian, and either implies or he might even be straight forward but in a way that does not make the patient lose hope. But on the other hand, when the family of the patient state as a condition that the hospital or the doctor should not tell the patient about his condition, the doctor has to keep his commitment, but this is due to the necessity of complying with the stipulations of the contract and not from the ethical point of view.

That is why we say that is permissible and sometimes even preferable not to give the patient any false hope, for he could miss the opportunity of doing many things that would be of benefit both to himself and the people. Therefore, from the point of view of both ethics and Shariah, it is not prohibited to tell the patient about his condition, unless it would hasten his death. Moreover, one has to take into consideration the ability of the patient to deal with the truth. This might need either a psychiatrist or the patient's family to assess the circumstances.

As for abiding by the doctor's orders, especially those pertaining to the performing of religious duties, even if the patient is not sure about how religious the doctor is, the diagnosis of the doctor if he is trustworthy and experienced could be a legal (Shariah) excuse. But even if the doctor is not trusted and the patient doubts that his warning that fasting would harm him, the patient has in this case too not to fast, since the issue is the fear of being harmed and not the harm itself, but if what the doctor says does not make the patient afraid of being harmed, then he should not break his fast.

As for a female patient going to a male doctor, it is permitted in case there is no female doctor of the required specialization. Some jurists have considered it also permissible if the male doctor is more lenient than the female doctor.

As for the female nurse or doctor that has to touch male patients, it is not permissible, if there is no need to, as in the presence of a male physician or nurse. Moreover, it would be permitted if the women wear gloves, and even without wearing gloves if there is a need and no male doctor is available, but we would like our female nurses to work in places where they can keep their religious commitments.

A male doctor might have sometimes to shake hands with foreign women, especially in the West where it is considered part of the job requirements since he is required to receive his patient in the best possible manner. Moreover, after the handshake he will have to examine her entire body. In this case it is permissible if not shaking hands will cause great harm, but if the doctor can wear gloves, then he has to do so, even if they were plastic ones.

A medical student who has to look at Awra or the like, arousing the possibility of some satanic ideas… this student should look at these organs as a scientist who wants to learn the characteristics and the symptoms, and not that of a person seeking pleasure. If the look leads to satanic ideas it will be impermissible, especially if it leads to committing a haram act.

Moreover, sometimes the harm could be related to other aspects, for example: paying a fee would not be affordable for the female doctor, in this case it is permissible to resort to a male doctor, but if the fee is affordable then she has to consult a female doctor.

As for medications, there are many details related to trading in medications as when the doctor prescribes additional medications because he has signed a contract with those who trade with certain medications, In this case, I have to say without going into details and providing other examples that are will known to those whom medicine is their trade, that this is unethical, because you have to be ethical to be humanitarian and seek to serve other human beings.

One interesting points, that was raised by several people in view of the new scientific discoveries, is Man's dignity, that the Quran has confirmed when it said, that "We have honored the children of Adam”.

There are many today who believe that what science has discovered in how life starts is demeaning, since it is demeaning to produce man in a factory, or interfere in his genes, or improve something in his structure. But we say what has all this to do with man's dignity, Man's dignity is to give him his freedom, and open his mind and heart on what he loves, and help him to bear his responsibility towards himself and the others…

But to take a step in the line of producing a human being has nothing to do with man's dignity. For what is the difference between making man in the natural way of reproduction and between producing him while you are only thinking about satisfying your desires, whom some people might find demeaning to the new life produced.

This is the same as producing man in a laboratory. Honoring a man does not have anything to do with how he was produced, but with how to treat him once he is produced.