جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "patient's consent" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

The imposition of diya (financial compensation in Islamic law) on doctors, alongside the obligation to provide treatment and medical procedures that entail diya, leads to their reluctance to fulfill their responsibilities. Consequently, some laws specify that doctors are not liable in certain cases, such as organ transplants. In the case of abortion, despite previous declarations of non-responsibility, the new law does not have a clear position, and upon examining Islamic jurisprudence, most opinions indicate that doctors are obligated to pay diya, even in permitted abortions. Meanwhile, some alternative opinions offer solutions for relieving doctors of this responsibility, while others argue that authorization for the procedure leads to the nullification of diya. Considering governance in Islamic jurisprudence, using practical legal opinions in law formulation, referring to the principle of benevolence, and some other rules could provide a basis for the non-responsibility of doctors in performing their legal duties regarding abortion. The ambiguity arising from the silence of the law requires clarification and explicit expression.

Potential treatment risks refer to those risks that concern treatment measures in its strict sense, and these risks must not be predictable at the time of concluding the treatment contract between the physician and patient. Of course, the conventional meaning of these risks relates to the situation in which its arrival is neither that of the doctor’s default, nor that of the patient’s default. In this paper, the reasons behind the recoverability of potential treatment risks were analyzed, and we came to the conclusion that, on the one hand, the doctor is not liable for these risks because of the observance the scientific standards and conventional manners of doctors during special conditions and circumstances of treatment, and like France, there should be taken into account some special provisions in Iran’s law, and on the other hand, on the subject of compensating patients for unjust losses in this respect, since they (patients) have not defaulted in the course of incurring these losses, it would be reasonable that the Iranian legislator protects the patients’ interests by establishing “a security fund related to compensating aggrieved people due to terrorist activities, crimes and accidents whose causes are unknown or it’s impossible to get blood money from the harming party for any reason”, just like France’s law in which such losses are recoverable from a specific security fund by complying with special conditions and formalities.