Jurisprudential Analysis of Widespread Disease Outbreaks with Emphasis on the Harmless Rule

The spread of infectious illnesses has been one of the elements that endangers society's health. Although many of these hazards have been greatly decreased as a result of medical science advancements, we have seen that diseases like the COVID-19, nevertheless constitute a severe threat to the health of all societies. This study aims to analyze the prevalence of widespread illnesses in order to evaluate the analysis of the aforementioned situation, taking into account the evolution of social and legal systems in societies.

This study was conducted using a descriptive-analytical approach.

In light of various interpretations of its contents, the domain of innocuous and harmless regulations has many distinct meanings, which makes its application highly challenging. After establishing a particular criterion, it is suggested that harmlessness is the absence of injury and the prohibition of producing harm as a result of the abuse of rights, with the criterion of abuse of rights being seen as a breach of accepted conduct.

As long as there is a broad illness outbreak, the disease's transmission is seen as damage, and because of the rule of harmlessness, the disease's transmission and facilitation are forbidden. Even though an act that falls under the purview of an individual's rights in a typical circumstance is thought to be the source of disease transmission and harm, in the event of a disease outbreak, it is regarded as unusual behavior and is limited or prohibited due to the second part of the rule that it is harmless. The conflict between losses does not provide a problem since, in the circumstances described, the individual loss is contrasted to society's loss, and society's loss is significant.