نویسنده: اختری، سجاد* ؛ محمدی، موسی ؛ محمدی ایلامی، رحیم ؛
چکیده: زمینه و هدف: یکی از اهداف اساسی هر جامعه و نظام سیاسی، ایجاد و گسترش عدالت در تمامی ابعاد اجتماعی است. تحقق این نوع عدالت در حقوق پزشکی، یکی از اهداف بنیادین این حوزه محسوب می‌شود. با این حال، رعایت حقوق بیماران تنها با در نظر گرفتن مصلحت‌های متغیر زمانی و مکانی ممکن است. گاهی پزشک با تضاد میان اجرای عدالت و رعایت مصلحت مواجه می‌شود که در چنین شرایطی انتخاب یکی از آن‌ها ضرورت می‌یابد. روش: این مطالعه با استفاده از روش توصیفی-تحلیلی و ابزار کتابخانه‌ای به بررسی و تبیین تضاد میان مصلحت و عدالت در نظام حقوقی پزشکی ایران می‌پردازد. ملاحظات اخلاقی: در این پژوهش اصل امانتداری، صداقت، بی‌طرفی و اصالت اثر رعایت شده است. یافته‌ها: یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که تأمین منافع بیماران در بستر جامعه قابل تحقق است. حفظ نظم و انسجام جامعه و تأمین منافع عمومی بر منافع فردی اولویت دارد. نتیجه‌گیری: حفظ اسرار بیماران، به عنوان بخشی از منافع عمومی، پیش‌نیازی برای حفظ جامعه و جلوگیری از اختلال در نظام پزشکی است. همان‌گونه که حفظ نظم بر سایر قواعد تقدم دارد، تأمین منافع عمومی نیز اولویت دارد.
منبع: حقوق پزشکی بهار 1403 – شماره 59 رتبه: علمی-پژوهشی/ISC (18 صفحه – از 679 تا 696 )
Jurisprudential and Legal Review of the Clash of Patient Interest and Justice in Iranian Medical Law
Author: Sajjad, Akhtari *; Rahim Mohammadi, Ilami; Musa, Mohammadi;
Abstract: Background and Aim: The issue of stupidity and transactions related to it by stupidity are important and debated in jurisprudence, legal and social fields. Due to the fact that Safih (stupid person) has a mental disorder and his actions and movements are out of the usual way of rational people and what is the habit of most people. Therefore, it is the person who uses his property for other than correct (rational) purposes. Although in jurisprudence, there is no specific age for a person's growth. At the same time, this matter and the terms of their transaction are not the same in different schools of jurisprudence. Therefore, this study deals with the legal nature of the transaction with a foolish person and explains it in a comparative manner by considering controversial cases in law, Imamiyyah jurisprudence and Khamsa religions according to the traditions and principles of jurisprudence. Method: This study examines and analyzes the statements of experts and the jurisprudential principles and perceptions of the Imamiyyah and other religions and their Islamic laws by using the descriptive-analytical method and in a library form and through the data collection tool. Ethical Considerations: The principle of honesty, impartiality and trustworthiness and the originality of the work are among the fundamental principles of this study. Results: Growth is not the same due to the characteristics of each person, and because it is considered as a formative and customary matter, its measurement and limits are not determined in the Shariah. The jurists of Imamiyyah and other schools of thought have differences in this field, especially regarding the transaction of a Safih person. Such transactions may take place based on the dignity of a fool, but the trader is not a fool. Conclusion: The presence of a guardian is necessary for a fool in financial affairs and transactions, and it is possible to recognize and explain his standard in terms of rational custom to make his actions and actions smooth like conventional rational actions, although he is independent and free in non-financial cases. Despite this, there is no fundamental difference between Imamiyyah and Sunni jurists regarding the need for awareness and knowledge related to contracts and transactions. Please cite this article as: Mohammadi M, Akhtari S, Mohammadi Ilami R. Jurisprudential and Legal Review of the Clash of Patient Interest and Justice in Iranian Medical Law. Medical Law Journal. 2023; 17(58): e69.