جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « harmless rule » در نشریات گروه « پزشکی »

 In the international human rights system, the right to receive and publish information is considered one of the basic human rights, but according to human rights documents, this right is not absolute and comes with conditions, criteria and limitations. The purpose of the current research is to find ways to prevent the abuse of the right to receive and publish information.

 This research is of theoretical type and the research method is Qualitative content analysis; The method of data collection is library which has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.

Ethical Considerations:

 In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

 The principle of prohibiting the abuse of the right; Whether as a part of the principle of good faith or the principle of harmlessness or as an independent principle, it limits the free flow of information and is an exception to the right to receive and disseminate information. Based on this, a narrow and precise reading of it should be given so that it does not play the role of distorting the freedom of expression. Under a general rule, the abuse of the right can be cited as a limitation of the right to receive and disseminate information when it is stated in the relevant laws and in accordance with the standards of democratic societies.

 The following article, considering the abstractness and fluidity of the concept of abuse of right, while trying to get a more precise approach to the concept of the mentioned principle, has reviewed criteria such as bad faith and deviation from the social goal of the right as the criteria of abuse of the right and proposed the criterion of "unconventional conscious damage" for this purpose. So from the point of view of this article, abuse of the right to receive and disseminate information occurs only when a person, organization or country behaves with full knowledge in the free flow of information in a way that leads to unusual damage to others.

The civil responsibility of medical professionals, especially physicians, has been disputed for a long time. In the meantime, in order to improve the process of definitive treatment of patients, including those infected with the coronavirus, and to reduce liability lawsuits in the courts, changing the basis of the physician's civil liability from the "Theory of presumption of Fault" to the "The Theory of Attributability". Based on "Flexible Custom Arbitration with the requirements of time and place, to get closer to social justice" and "Valid Jurisprudential Rules" is necessary.

The research method of this Article is Descriptive-Analytical and the method of collecting information is Library Studies.

This Article has completely adhered to the Moral Principles -Honesty, Respect for Rights and Confidentiality- and the Principle of Material-Intellectual Property.

In US Law, after the outbreak of Covid-19 and the declaration of emergency, the federal emergency laws and the executive orders of the states changed from "Ready to Enforce" to "Enforceable" and based on "The Ihsan Rule" and paying attention to the goodness of the physician. In the absence of negligence to the extent of reckless misconduct, intentional misconduct and gross negligence, immunity from liability was created for the physician. In Iranian law, after the outbreak of Covid-19, the legislature's approach is still based on the "The Theory of Presumption of Fault".

Facing an emergency requires passing emergency laws. "Preventing the Tsunami of Civil Liability Claims", "Improve the Patient's Treatment process by increasing the physician's focus and courage", "Unknown and Unpredictable Disease" and "The Need for advances in medical science" required the support of the physician and he demanded to pay attention to the exceptions of the physician's responsibility in emergency situations, such as the treatment of patients with corona and in case of negligence that does not include intentional fault or gross fault, he should be entitled to support responsibility.Please cite this article as:Rafiee R, Abedini H, Rostaei H. Physician Civil Liability in the Treatment of Patients with Covid19 in Iranian Law Adapted to the American Legal System. Medical Law Journal. 2022; 16(57): e25.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of banning marriage of people with genetic disorders according to jurisprudential and medical sources.

The present study was conducted using an analytical-descriptive method. Based on the use of jurisprudential and medical sources and the use of relevant articles and books on the types of genetic diseases and their dangers, the relevant narrations and shortcomings of the existing laws on marriage of people with genetic disorders and solutions provided to prevent the birth of defective babies. , Was examined.

Findings of the study by examining the risks of marriage of people with genetic disorders indicate that using jurisprudential and legal sources as well as identifying the reasons for the birth of infants with genetic disorders by medical science, control and strictness of marriage and childbearing of people with genetic disorders whose percentage and probability of birth Babies with high levels of the disorder are essential.

Marriage has a special nature among contracts, which has made it very difficult to interpret the rules related to it. The right to imprisonment, which is commonly used in exchange contracts, has been interpreted differently in marriage. On the one hand, the realm of the right to imprisonment in relation to general and specific obedience, and on the other hand, the status of the couple's bondage and its effect on the right to imprisonment is a point of contention. Given the couple's remarriage based on a court order, this would preclude the wife from exercising her right to divorce, as stated in the marriage certificate, although there is disagreement as to the possibility of exercising the wife's right to divorce, with or without a court order. is not. The purpose of this article is to analyze the conflict between harmless (wife's right to imprisonment) and harmless (husband's lack of pleasure) in the couple's relationship.

This descriptive-analytical article has been prepared using documentary method and filing tool.

The findings indicate that, in the conflict between two unruly or one unruly and one harmless rules, the well-known view is that both are abrogated and refer to the basic arguments that the wife's right to imprisonment is maintained.

 This article has been prepared and compiled in all stages of writing, adhering to the principles of honesty and trustworthiness.

The jurists have considered obedience in the discussion of the right to imprisonment as a special obedience. When the dowry is due, the wife's right to imprisonment will undoubtedly be lost, but if the payment of the dowry is subject to the husband's financial means, it will have two important effects. One is the abolition of the right to imprisonment, the subject of Article 1085 AH. M due to the implicit confession of the wife to the husband's marriage and the impossibility of imprisoning the husband. This issue will be consistent with the interpretation of the jurists' theory that the dowry is valid whenever possible and in a way removes the harmless conflict (wife's right to imprisonment) and no embarrassment (husband's lack of pleasure) in the couple's relationship. Imamiyya confirms this method.