جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "irresponsibility" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Since a long time ago, the question of civil liability of physician towards a patient has been considered by legal thinkers carefully; but a point worth deliberation is those instances that the physicians are acquitted and observing the instances, it is not regarded guarantee for them. The legislator supports the physicians and excuses them from guarantee and civil liability under the certain conditions, in order to protect the social interests and safeguard the entirety of corporeal personality of individuals. Obtaining the acquittal from the patient, presence of forcible strength, patient act on the refusal of treatment, carelessness of the patient, urgency, observing the governmental disciplines and lack of causality relation between the physician act and incoming loss are factors that studied and considered as removal reasons of civil liability of physicians. Condition of irresponsibility requires only the removal of liability based on the rule of danger and establishment of dangerous milieu, and such condition on the assumption of major or intentional offence is against the public order, and on the assumption of commitment of offence as a result of indiscretion, carelessness and non-observance of governmental disciplines, the physician act will be desirable affair depend on his inclination and will, too. But under the conditions that mentions in this paper, in view of accepting the theory of assumption of offence in the new statute and considering this matter that acceptance of mere liability of physician toward the patient, is accepted by well-known Shi’ite jurisprudents, and the legislator has deviated from such viewpoint in the present law and modified such condition; the physician will be exempted from civil liability, and his action will not be followed guarantee, so that it will be followed displacement of burden of proof.

Representative's freedom to speech and vote is a necessity, guaranty of which can lead to protection of people's rights. Foreseeing, in constitutions, irresponsibility of representative to his ideas and special procedure for his accusations are recognized as instruments to implement this concern. Parliamentary immunity, in fact, is a legal protection to contrast probable conspiracies that may be prepared to an official. But this subject has faced serious challenges in Iranian constitutional system, such as being in contrast with the principle of equality before the law and justice, contradiction with Islamic judicial principles and general jurisdiction of the judiciary.In this article we were to answer to this fundamental question that what is the viewpoint of constitutional legislator about the matter of parliamentary immunity and how much, in effect, present constitutional system has followed that approach. Hence, after a glancing introduction with this constitutional term and investigating the ratification process of principle 86 in The Chamber of Final Survey of Constitution, constitutional legislator's standpoint is analyzed and in the light of that perspective, Parliamentary immunity in the Iranian constitutional system is evaluated.