جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « organ transplantation » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Brain death and organ transplantation from brain-dead patients is a new issue that only contemporary jurists have addressed. The majority of these jurists have considered life and death as common customs and have not permitted organ transplantation from brain-dead patients. However, some of them regard the diagnosis of death in brain-dead patients as a specific custom and have allowed organ transplantation. This article argues that regarding brain-dead patients, one should refer to the general custom concerning devotional rules, such as shrouding and burial, and refer to the specific custom regarding non-devotional rules, such as organ transplantation and inheritance. Therefore, it is obligatory to transplant the organs of these people to those who need organ transplantation. Moreover, since doctors consider the life of the affected person irreversible and brain death is the permanent, irreversible, and complete loss of brain function, the right to life of the affected person has not been ignored. In addition, since organ transplantation is not disrespectful to the body, bodily integrity has not been ignored.

Brain death means permanent and irreversible stopping of all brain functions in such a way that there is no hope of returning to the previous state. In medical science, brain death is absolute death, but in religious jurisprudence it is controversial. Many attempts have been made to explore its sharia ruling, but each researcher has paid attention to one specific part of its evidence. The evolution of the debate and the discovery of new evidences by researchers have been the reasons for such variation in ideas. Now that all the possible evidences have been presented, in the current study, based on the library research method and comprehensive tracking of the evidences, the question: “How is the probative evidences of those who support the certainty of brain death evaluated?” was answered. It was determined that the probative evidence is incomplete in determining brain death, and a so-called brain-dead person cannot be considered dead, but rather the rulings of a living person should be applied to him/her.

In Islamic jurisprudence, the subject of organ donation and transplantation has been carefully examined in light of the religious rules. The issue of organ donation is an important religious topic that was not addressed in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or even the early Islamic jurists in its current form. Considering the scientific advancements in medical science and the deep connection between Islamic jurisprudence and human health, the religious ruling on organ transplantation has become a major concern for Islamic societies. Contemporary jurists, based on Quranic verses, narrations, and an examination of jurisprudential rules and texts, have presented different interpretations regarding the permissibility of organ transplantation. In the Iranian Civil Code, the topic of organ donation and transplantation is independently regulated under the section titled "Organ Donation and Transplantation." According to the Iranian Civil Code, organ donation must be voluntary and with full consent. On the other hand, organ transplantation requires meeting certain conditions, such as the absence of a serious risk to the health of both the donor and the recipient.

Organ donation is a newly-raised legal issue with double importance and many challenges. What has been achieved in this article is an alternative opinion different from the opinions of other Shi'a jurists. In this research, relying on the necessity of preserving the respected soul through the four evidences of the Shari'a rulings, it has been proved that the organ donation of brain-dead patients and their organ transplantation is obligatory to preserve the respected soul who needs a transplant to continue living. This ruling is deemed as obligatory while the opinions of all Shi'ite jurists have been focused on the issue of permissibility or prohibition of organ donation. While investigating the doubts that have been brought up regarding the ruling for the permissibility, this research degrades the evidence of the claimants of the prohibition of organ donation. It is hoped that this jurisprudential survey will save many lives and become an example of the verse 32 of Sūrat al-Mā’ida, "And whoever saves a live is as though he has saved all the mankind.

Organ donation is one of the medical phenomena nowadays. The permissibility and non-permissibility of donating organs as well as the will of a person to donate his/her organs after death are among the issues that have been addressed by the jurists of the two sects. After examining the proofs of the permissibility and impermissibility of the will to donate organs, this article aims to answer this question that if a person makes a will that after his/her death, his/her body parts will be donated for transplantation to another body, is such a will valid from the Sharia's point of view? Also, in the case of brain death (if it is considered to be dead), is such a will valid from the Sharia's point of view? After reviewing the arguments of the supporters and opponents, the author has come to the conclusion that the supporters’ arguments have more scientific strength. Although the rule of power and authority is not in accordance with the divine law, but according to the examination of other reasons such as reasons of priority over property and lives that man has the right to such power and authority. On the assumption that the primary reasons are distorted, but considering the importance and necessity of the issue, secondary commandment is permissible. The research method in this article is analytical-descriptive and library-based.

There has been tremendous progress in the field of medical sciences in recent years. One of these developments is the issue of Xenotransplantation. The aim of the present study is that in cases of transplantation of an animal organ to a human being, if the organ is damaged after transplantation, is it possible to demand blood money?

This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.

The findings of the present study show that in the field of Fiqh, there are two approaches: title-oriented and intentional (or result-oriented) approach. Examining the Islamic Penal Code, we will find that the legislature has accepted the approach of later jurists, that is, the intentional approach.Ethical Considerations: In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

The intentional approach in Fiqh, by appealing to basic principles such as the principle of correctness as well as the variable of efficiency, and also taking into account the necessities in the society, issues a license to receive diyat in cases of damage to animal organs transplanted to humans. In the light of this, the Islamic Penal Code is not designed to prohibit such a sentence; Rather, it has implicitly endorsed this ruling.

Medicine is one of the necessities of social life and the health and lives of human beings are constantly one of the important concerns of human societies. The revolution that has brought about scientific research and new medical discoveries in the field of medical science has raised countless questions that Islamic jurists cannot remain silent about. Because jurisprudence has a deep connection with human life, the results of discussion and research on these questions are effective in human life. Therefore, it is up to the scholars and jurists of Islam to take the rulings of these emerging issues that affect the lives of human beings out of the texts and rules of Sharia and to express the divine ruling on them. Based on this, by relying on the rules of jurisprudence, many problems in medical science can be resolved and a valid and acceptable Shari'a solution can be presented to specialized physicians to rely on Shari'a arguments and confidently examine examples of issues. Let them solve the problem and find its religious aspect, and in this way, we can carry out jurisprudence and medicine together. In the present study, we intend to explain the role and effect of the rule of negation of embarrassment on solving new problems in medical science and its efficiency.

In the light of advances in organ transplantation, travel for transplantation has been surging with the passage of time. Travel for the purpose of transplantation is a legitimate behavior that in certain circumstances or in the event of committing some unethical or illegal conduct becomes "Transplant Tourism". Transplant tourism has expanded largely due to the weakness of national laws and the global shortage of organs. This phenomenon has been the subject of numerous international instruments in recent decades and its prohibition, prevention, and sometimes criminalization have been stressed in this regard. On the one hand, transplant tourism is related to "trafficking in persons for organ removal" and "organ trafficking", and there is a significant overlap between such phenomena. This entails a comprehensive approach in this area. On the other hand, transplant tourism is a transnational phenomenon, and thus the participation of members of the international community is necessary to address this problem. Nevertheless, Iran, as a member of the international community, lacks a suitable approach to transplant tourism. Due to the weakness of the domestic regulations and their distance from the international community's perspective, it is essential that the legislator be involved with the issue to anticipate an appropriate approach to tackling transplant tourism. Requirements for such an approach include the definition of transplant tourism, prevention of this phenomenon, and its criminalization, while taking into account the characteristics of this phenomenon and its perpetrators.

The feasibility to execute retaliation and capital punishment through organ donation is an innovative solutions and yet effective way to protect the human life and health. Imamie's famous jurisprudents believe that the method of punishment’s fulfillment does not matter by itself, and the punishment must be implemented in such a way as to impose the least suffering on a person, in contrast to some jurisprudents, equality and the Resemblance of execution are indispensable. This article, while accepting the well-known opinion, on this basis, the convict will suffer the least and it is possible to change the manner of punishment, considering that one of the most important sources for providing a transplanted organ, especially the basis organs such as the heart, lungs, liver, and pancreas, etc., is in the body of people who is sentenced to death. and in most cases, they have healthy organs and they are buried with the execution. however, governmental order is solution Especially in cases of dissatisfaction to organ transplantation.

Criminal liability for the transmission of transmissible diseases in organ transplantations is one of the challenging issues requiring scientific accountability in this regard. Because in the process of organ transplantation and the transmission of contagious diseases we face three pillars of the medical staff, the transmitter, and the transmitted or the victim, we should separately examine the extent of each of the criminal liabilities. There is a controversy over the responsibility of the mentioned bodies in terms of jurisprudence and the law and the procedures of the courts. The jurisprudents hold that the physicians are responsible in all circumstances, but the law and the procedures of the courts do not hold him accountable to the prescribed conditions (observance of technical regulations or taking acquittal) in the law and their observance by the physician. The current jurisprudential and legal views hold that according to the type of disease transmitted and its being fatal or non-sedentary, as well as in the view of the existence of a criminal intention (mens rea) of depriving the life of or sustaining a physical harm to the patient, as well as a criminal blame, (recklessness, negligence, etc.) the penalty will be different. In addition, considering the medical requirements before transplantation, the faults of the medical staff should be specifically considered.

Removal of the ovary or testicle from the donor of organ and its transplantation into the recipient is one of the newest methods of pregnancy. After transplantation, the egg or sperm released from the ovary or testicle belongs to the recipient, but the ruling of the parentage of such a child from the religious and legal point of view, as well as the effects on this genealogy, is the main question of this study. The study of the arguments and principles suggests that the genealogy of a child born from the transplant of a hereditary organ is transferred to the couples into whom the organ was transplanted, and all legal effects related to genealogy, such as marriage, will, and inheritance, are also transferred to the child born from this method of pregnancy.

consensus of the Islamic scholars of the Islamic constitutions, can be made subject to conditions, but what is the difference between the members is the effect of organ transplantation on the retaliation of the retribution, whether the transplant is a member of the crime, whether it is a member of the retribution. The origin and the main cause of this difference is a different interpretation from the narrative that exists in this regard. Some consider it as something special about Madnay, and some of it are specially Johnny. In this article, the jurisprudents and the arguments of each argument are discussed. And then the theory of organ transplant authorization was strengthened by a criminal case against, before and after the exercise of the right of retribution, his right to crash, and the impossibility of depriving him of a linkage to a criminal offense by a criminal, and the theory of the authorization of a transplant by a human being and the impossibility of re-enforcing his retaliation. According to the theory of non-cessation of the right of retribution, the law is based on the fact that his right to retribution has been fulfilled with the occurrence of a crime and The action against a member of the transplant does not have an effect on the collapse of this right, and the basis of the theory of permission of a transplant by a person and the right of retributive right to a member of a transplant is that the right of retribution to a member of a person is ongoing and its transplantation has an effect on rehabilitation This is not right.

One of the most important issues of our time in the field of medical law and jurisprudence is amputated limb/ organ transplantation after the implementation of Hadd (prescribed Corporeal Punishment) and Qisas (Retaliation), which is a matter of controversy among jurisprudents. Among the causes of this disagreement are references to texts with uncertain indications (Zanni al-Dalalah) and conflicts among ultimate religious purposes for practical regulations in the expression of Islamic rules. Furthermore, among the objectives of punishment are the disciplining of the convict, relief for the plaintiff and security for the society. Social security is the ultimate purpose of Hadd and relief for the plaintiff is the primary reason for the implementation of Qisas. Differences in the type of argument and attitude in preferring certain purposes over others have led to the emergence of three perspectives in this context: One group advocates the absolute prohibition of amputated limb/ organ transplantation including Imamyya, Hanbali, Maliki and some contemporary schools of jurisprudence. Another group advocates the absolute permissibility of amputated limb/ organ transplantation including Hanafi, Shafii and some contemporary schools of jurisprudence. The third group divides rights into Haq al-Lah (the rights of God) and Haq an-Nas (the rights of people), advocating the permissibility of transplantation under Haq al-Lah and also under Haq al-Nas but with certain conditions. The fatwa of the Jeddah Fiqh Academy and some temporary schools of jurisprudence fall into this category. Evaluations of the reasons posited by different perspectives in light of general Islamic principles and purposes bring us to the conclusion that we must differentiate between Haq al-Lah and Haq al-Nas in this issue such that amputated limb transplantation is not permissible under Haq al-Lah (Hadd for theft or Muharaba) but it is permissible under Haq al-Nas (retaliation for amputated limb/ organ) conditional on the plaintiff’s consent or limb/ organ restoration.

The soul does its duties by brain which are foresight and manipulation, therefore at the time of death, the soul leaves the body. There is difference between death of organs and the whole body, because some organs are still alive after death. This fact is the cause of transplantation from dead bodies, particulary Brain dead persons.Since the organs transplantation has the important role in saving the patients, it is necessary to make informed the public about it.In addition of Recognition certain occurrence of brain death, patient’s will or the assent of dead’s relatives is necessary requirment for transplantation, so organs transplant is not legally possible in the lack of these conditions, even though the death about to happen. However some jurisconsults have different idea and believe that mutilation is possible without testament or the assent of dead’s relatives. In accordance with the arthors’ opinion, moslem’s life is very important, so it is necessary to provide the possibility of transplantation in the lack of those requirments. In the other word, It could be said that those conditions are only necessary when life of organ depends upon transplantation. This essay attemps to illustrate the foundations of transplantation in addition to mention to the different opinions.