Brain Death - Revision history

Sarfipour: /* Study Resources */

2025-12-28T14:19:18Z

Study Resources

Sarfipour: /* Study Resources */

2025-12-28T14:18:57Z

Study Resources

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:18, 28 December 2025
Line 65:		Line 65:

	== Study Resources ==		== Study Resources ==
	~~Numerous works~~ in Persian and Arabic ~~languages and in the form of~~ books, articles, and theses ~~have~~ examined brain death ~~jurisprudentially~~. Among ~~these~~ works~~, one can mention the book~~ Brain Death from the Perspective of Jurisprudence and Law; Muḥammad Raḥmatī ~~in this book, after conceptualizing~~ death and life in jurisprudential sources and medical texts, ~~mentions~~ the ~~reasons~~ of ~~supporters~~ and opponents of ~~the vitality of a~~ brain-dead ~~patient~~ and examines the permissibility of organ transplantation ~~from a brain-dead patient~~. He also, ~~in collaboration~~ with ʿAlī Akbar Farahzādī, ~~has authored~~ an article ~~titled~~ “Study of Brain Death from the Perspective of Jurisprudence and Criminal ~~Law” and after conceptual explanation and argumentative examination of the issue~~, in the ~~position of conclusion~~, ~~has stated~~ that ~~the criterion for~~ human life is the connection of soul and body, ~~and~~ since this connection is through the brain, a brain-dead patient ~~has the ruling of a dead human~~. ~~The book~~ [[Organ Transplantation and Brain Death in the Mirror of Jurisprudence (book)\|Organ Transplantation and Brain Death in the Mirror of Jurisprudence]] ~~written~~ by Sayyid Muḥsin Mortażavī ~~and the book~~ [[Brain Death: Legal-Jurisprudential Processing (book)\|Brain Death: Legal-Jurisprudential Processing]] ~~written~~ by Ḥamīd Sotūdeh, and [[Mawt al-Dimagh fi al-Fiqh al-Islami (book)\|Mawt al-Dimāgh fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī]] ~~written~~ by Masʿūd Ṣabrī ~~which has been~~ published in Egypt ~~are other published works in this field~~.		A considerable body of literature in Persian and Arabic, including books, articles, and academic theses, has examined the issue of brain death from a jurisprudential perspective. Among the notable works in this field is Brain Death from the Perspective of Jurisprudence and Law, in which Muḥammad Raḥmatī discusses the concepts of death and life as presented in jurisprudential sources and medical texts, outlines the arguments of both proponents and opponents of considering brain-dead patients alive, and examines the permissibility of organ transplantation in such cases. Raḥmatī has also co-authored, with ʿAlī Akbar Farahzādī, an article entitled “Study of Brain Death from the Perspective of Jurisprudence and Criminal Law,” in which the issue is analyzed conceptually and argumentatively, concluding that human life depends on the connection between soul and body and that, since this connection is mediated through the brain, a brain-dead patient is to be regarded as legally deceased.

			Other significant works include [[Organ Transplantation and Brain Death in the Mirror of Jurisprudence (book)\|Organ Transplantation and Brain Death in the Mirror of Jurisprudence]] by Sayyid Muḥsin Mortażavī, [[Brain Death: Legal-Jurisprudential Processing (book)\|Brain Death: Legal-Jurisprudential Processing]] by Ḥamīd Sotūdeh, and [[Mawt al-Dimagh fi al-Fiqh al-Islami (book)\|Mawt al-Dimāgh fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī]] by Masʿūd Ṣabrī, published in Egypt.

	== references ==		== references ==

Sarfipour: /* Rulings Related to Brain Death */

2025-12-28T14:09:18Z

Rulings Related to Brain Death

Show changes

Sarfipour: /* Criterion for Detecting Death in a Brain-Dead Patient */

2025-12-28T11:46:52Z

Criterion for Detecting Death in a Brain-Dead Patient

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 28 December 2025
Line 36:		Line 36:

	== Criterion for Detecting Death in a Brain-Dead Patient ==		== Criterion for Detecting Death in a Brain-Dead Patient ==
	Does the ~~title "dead"~~ apply to ~~patients~~ afflicted with brain death? Jurists have ~~presented various views in response~~ to this question. ~~It seems that~~ this disagreement ~~returns~~ to the ~~difference~~ of ~~opinion~~ in the ~~issue~~ of the ~~validity and credibility of the common diagnosis or the jurist's statement~~ in ~~detecting common subjects~~. ~~Some~~ jurists consider the ~~common diagnosis valid and~~ the jurist~~'s duty~~ to be ~~merely~~ deducing the ruling~~; but~~ others in ~~some~~ cases ~~consider the jurist's statement superior to~~ the ~~common~~ opinion.<ref>See: ʿAlīdūst, “Expert Opinions of the Jurist on Subjects of Rulings”, pp. 50–54.</ref> ~~The~~ views ~~of jurists regarding~~ the authority for ~~detecting~~ death in a brain patient ~~can~~ be ~~divided~~ into two ~~categories:~~		Does the designation of “dead” apply to a patient afflicted with brain death? Jurists have offered differing answers to this question. The roots of this disagreement can be traced to divergent views regarding the authority and validity of customary diagnosis in identifying common subjects, as opposed to the role of the jurist’s own judgment in such determinations. While some jurists regard the identification of the subject as a matter entrusted to customary understanding and consider the task of the jurist to be limited to deducing the legal ruling, others maintain that in certain cases the jurist’s assessment may take precedence over customary opinion.<ref>See: ʿAlīdūst, “Expert Opinions of the Jurist on Subjects of Rulings”, pp. 50–54.</ref> On this basis, juristic views concerning the authority for determining death in a brain-dead patient may be classified into two general approaches.
	~~=== General Common (ʿUrf-e ʿĀmm) ===~~
	From the perspective of some contemporary jurists such as [[Muhammad Fazel Lankarani\|Muḥammad Fāżel Lankarānī]]<ref>Khodādādī, Rulings for Physicians and Patients, pp. 149–150.</ref> and [[Jawad Tabrizi\|Javād Tabrīzī]]<ref>Khūʾī and Tabrīzī, 1390 SH, p. 279.</ref> the common diagnosis regarding subjects is valid. According to Muḥammad Fāżel Lankarānī, since the common people (ʿurf-e ʿāmm) consider a brain-dead patient alive, these patients have the rulings of a living person.<ref>Khodādādī, Rulings for Physicians and Patients, pp. 149–150.</ref> [[Muhammad Mumin\|Muḥammad Muʾmin]] also believes that although detecting vital signs of the brain is the responsibility of a specialist physician, determining the concept of life and death is a common issue, and to detect it, one must refer to a jurist aware of the common language. Also, Muḥammad Muʾmin and [[Mohammad Mohammadi Ghaeni]] believe that if the heart's activity is spontaneous and without device assistance, the patient is considered alive, and otherwise, death is ruled.<ref>Muʾmin, “Organ Transplantation”, p. 45; Qāʾinī, al-Mabsūṭ Masāʾil Ṭibbīyah, vol. 1, pp. 135–136, 139.</ref>

	=== ~~Specific Common~~ (ʿUrf-e Khāṣṣ) ===		=== General Custom (ʿUrf ʿĀmm) ===
	~~A number of other~~ marājiʿ taqlīd such as [[Naser Makarem Shirazi\|Nāṣer Makārem Shīrāzī]]<ref>Makārem Shīrāzī, Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence, vol. 1, p. 44.</ref> and [[Husayn Nuri Hamadani\|Ḥusayn Nūrī Hamadānī]]<ref>Nūrī Hamadānī, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues, vol. 1, pp. 253–254.</ref> ~~have left~~ the ~~detection~~ of details of ~~the~~ brain death ~~issue~~ to specialist physicians. Ḥusayn Nūrī Hamadānī considers brain death as the complete death of the person; even if other organs continue ~~their activity~~ for a ~~while~~.<ref>Nūrī Hamadānī, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues, vol. 1, pp. 253–254.</ref> Nāṣer Makārem Shīrāzī, ~~considering the statements of physicians—who consider~~ a brain-dead patient ~~like someone~~ whose brain ~~is disintegrated~~ or whose head ~~is separated~~ from the ~~body—believes~~ that a patient ~~afflicted with brain death is not considered~~ alive~~; however~~, in the ~~position~~ of fatwa ~~(religious edict)~~, he ~~exercises caution and does not count~~ a brain-dead patient as dead~~. Therefore,~~ in ~~the~~ rulings related to life and death ~~of such a person, he advocates detail~~.<ref>ʿAlīān Nezhādī, Medical Rulings, pp. 113–114.</ref>		According to some contemporary jurists, including [[Muhammad Fazel Lankarani\|Muḥammad Fāżel Lankarānī]]<ref>Khodādādī, Rulings for Physicians and Patients, pp. 149–150.</ref> and [[Jawad Tabrizi\|Javād Tabrīzī]]<ref>Khūʾī and Tabrīzī, 1390 SH, p. 279.</ref>, customary understanding is authoritative in identifying subjects. Muḥammad Fāżel Lankarānī holds that since general social custom (ʿurf ʿāmm) regards a brain-dead patient as alive, such individuals are subject to the legal rulings applicable to living persons.<ref>Khodādādī, Rulings for Physicians and Patients, pp. 149–150.</ref> [[Muhammad Mumin\|Muḥammad Muʾmin]] similarly maintains that although the identification of the brain’s vital signs lies within the expertise of specialist physicians, the determination of the concepts of life and death is a customary matter. Accordingly, such determination should be referred to a jurist who is familiar with common linguistic and social usage. Muḥammad Muʾmin and [[Mohammad Mohammadi Ghaeni]] further argue that if cardiac activity occurs spontaneously and without mechanical assistance, the patient is to be considered alive; otherwise, death is to be established.<ref>Muʾmin, “Organ Transplantation”, p. 45; Qāʾinī, al-Mabsūṭ Masāʾil Ṭibbīyah, vol. 1, pp. 135–136, 139.</ref>
	~~Also,~~ [[Husayn Ali Montazeri\|~~Ḥusayn-ʿAlī~~ Montazerī]]~~, considers~~ death ~~and life~~ as ~~two common~~ concepts and ~~the criterion for life and death as the detection of~~ experts. ~~He believes that the criterion in a person's~~ death is ~~the application of death~~ in such a ~~way~~ that all manifestations of life and ~~its effects are negated, and there is~~ no ~~probability~~ of return.<ref>Montazerī, Medical Rulings, pp. 120–121.</ref>
			=== Expert Custom (ʿUrf Khāṣṣ) ===
			Other contemporary Shiʿi marājiʿ al-taqlīd, such as [[Naser Makarem Shirazi\|Nāṣer Makārem Shīrāzī]]<ref>Makārem Shīrāzī, Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence, vol. 1, p. 44.</ref> and [[Husayn Nuri Hamadani\|Ḥusayn Nūrī Hamadānī]]<ref>Nūrī Hamadānī, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues, vol. 1, pp. 253–254.</ref>, entrust the determination of the details of brain death to specialist physicians. Ḥusayn Nūrī Hamadānī considers brain death to constitute the complete death of the person, even if other bodily organs continue to function for a period of time.<ref>Nūrī Hamadānī, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues, vol. 1, pp. 253–254.</ref> Nāṣer Makārem Shīrāzī, relying on medical assessments that liken a brain-dead patient to one whose brain has been destroyed or whose head has been severed from the body, maintains that such a patient cannot be regarded as alive. Nevertheless, out of juristic caution in the context of issuing a fatwa, he refrains from categorically declaring a brain-dead patient to be dead and therefore adopts a differentiated approach in rulings related to life and death.<ref>ʿAlīān Nezhādī, Medical Rulings, pp. 113–114.</ref>

			[[Husayn Ali Montazeri\|Ḥusayn‑ʿAlī Montazerī]] likewise regards life and death as customary concepts and considers their determination to rest with qualified experts. In his view, death is realized when it applies in such a manner that all manifestations and effects of life have ceased and no possibility of return remains.<ref>Montazerī, Medical Rulings, pp. 120–121.</ref>

	== Rulings Related to Brain Death ==		== Rulings Related to Brain Death ==

Sarfipour: /* Signs of Death */

2025-12-28T11:40:12Z

Signs of Death

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:40, 28 December 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:

	=== Signs of Death ===		=== Signs of Death ===
	Since determining the moment of death and ~~detecting~~ the separation of the soul from the body is difficult,<ref>Āqābābāʾī, Organ Transplantation from Deceased and Brain-Dead Patients, p. 23; Sotūdeh, Brain Death; Juridical-Legal Processing, pp. 38–40.</ref> ~~signs for death are mentioned in~~ jurisprudential texts~~, some~~ of ~~which~~ are: recession of the temples, loosening and bending of the nose, wrinkling of the facial skin, ~~loosening~~ of the legs, cessation of breathing and pulse, yellowing of the ~~body~~ skin ~~color~~, and abdominal swelling.<ref>See: Najafī, Javāhir al-Kalām, vol. 4, pp. 24–25; Muḥsinī, al-Fiqh wa Masāʾil al-Ṭibbīyah, vol. 2, p. 196.</ref> Some jurists such as the author of Javāhir al-Kalām believe that these signs are not definitive signs of death, and the criterion for death is knowledge and certainty of it, not the occurrence of these signs;<ref>Najafī, Javāhir al-Kalām, vol. 4, p. 25; Muḥsinī, al-Fiqh wa Masāʾil al-Ṭibbīyah, vol. 2, p. 196.</ref> of course, usually with the occurrence of all the mentioned signs, knowledge and certainty of death are obtained.<ref>Sotūdeh, Brain Death; Juridical-Legal Processing, p. 41.</ref>		Since determining the precise moment of death and identifying the separation of the soul from the body is inherently difficult,<ref>Āqābābāʾī, Organ Transplantation from Deceased and Brain-Dead Patients, p. 23; Sotūdeh, Brain Death; Juridical-Legal Processing, pp. 38–40.</ref> classical jurisprudential texts have referred to a number of signs as indicators of death. Among these signs are the recession of the temples, loosening and bending of the nose, wrinkling of the facial skin, slackening of the legs, cessation of breathing and pulse, yellowing of the skin, and abdominal swelling.<ref>See: Najafī, Javāhir al-Kalām, vol. 4, pp. 24–25; Muḥsinī, al-Fiqh wa Masāʾil al-Ṭibbīyah, vol. 2, p. 196.</ref>

	Some ~~believe~~ that the human soul and ~~spirit manage~~ the body through the higher brain ~~centers (~~cerebral hemispheres and brain stem). ~~Therefore~~, ~~whenever the~~ higher brain centers ~~fail~~, the soul separates from the body~~; because with the death of the higher brain centers~~, the ~~necessary capability~~ for the ~~soul's management~~ of the body is ~~eliminated, and the soul departs from the body~~.<ref>Ḥabībī, Brain Death and Organ Transplantation, p. 44.</ref> ~~Some also~~ consider the fundamental ~~factor in~~ the separation ~~of the soul~~ from the body to be the simultaneous ~~failure~~ of ~~the heart~~ and ~~brain~~.<ref>Sotūdeh, Brain Death; Juridical-Legal Processing, p. 42.</ref>		A number of jurists, including the author of Javāhir al-Kalām, emphasize that these signs do not in themselves constitute definitive proof of death. Rather, the true criterion for death is the attainment of knowledge and certainty regarding its occurrence, not merely the appearance of such signs.<ref>Najafī, Javāhir al-Kalām, vol. 4, p. 25; Muḥsinī, al-Fiqh wa Masāʾil al-Ṭibbīyah, vol. 2, p. 196.</ref> Nevertheless, it is generally observed that the simultaneous presence of these signs ordinarily leads to certainty about death.<ref>Sotūdeh, Brain Death; Juridical-Legal Processing, p. 41.</ref>

			Some scholars maintain that the human soul governs and directs the body through the higher centers of the brain, namely the cerebral hemispheres and the brain stem. Accordingly, when these higher brain centers cease functioning, the soul separates from the body, as the capacity required for the soul’s governance of the body is lost with their destruction.<ref>Ḥabībī, Brain Death and Organ Transplantation, p. 44.</ref> Others consider the fundamental cause of the soul’s separation from the body to be the simultaneous cessation of both cardiac and cerebral functions.<ref>Sotūdeh, Brain Death; Juridical-Legal Processing, p. 42.</ref>

	== Criterion for Detecting Death in a Brain-Dead Patient ==		== Criterion for Detecting Death in a Brain-Dead Patient ==

Sarfipour at 11:21, 28 December 2025

2025-12-28T11:21:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:21, 28 December 2025
Line 24:		Line 24:

	=== Death from the Perspective of Jurists ===		=== Death from the Perspective of Jurists ===
	Many jurists, ~~due to the clarity of~~ the ~~definition~~ of death, have not ~~addressed~~ its terminological definition and have ~~sufficed with mentioning~~ its rulings.<ref>Āqābābāʾī, Organ Transplantation from Deceased and Brain-Dead Patients, p. 21.</ref> Nevertheless, ~~some~~ jurists have defined death as the separation and ~~exit~~ of the soul from the body.<ref>See: Khūʾī, al-Mawsūʿah al-Imām al-Khūʾī, vol. 2, p. 464; Meshkīnī, Muṣṭalaḥāt al-Fiqh, p. 552; Nūrī Hamadānī, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues, vol. 1, p. 253; Muḥsinī, al-Fiqh wa Masāʾil al-Ṭibbīyah, vol. 1, p. 129; Khodādādī, pp. 148–149.</ref> ~~In general~~, ~~it can be said that~~ the reality of death ~~according to jurists is~~ the separation of the soul from the body, ~~and~~ the vitality of cells ~~has~~ no relation to the ~~vitality~~ of the human; just as the death of cells does not ~~cause the~~ death ~~of the human~~.<ref>Āqābābāʾī, Organ Transplantation from Deceased and Brain-Dead Patients, p. 22.</ref> [[Husayn Nuri Hamadani\|Ḥusayn Nūrī Hamadānī]]~~, one of the Shia marājiʿ taqlīd, after considering~~ death as the separation of the soul from the body, ~~states that with~~ the failure of the brain, human death ~~occurs;~~ because the ~~main thing is~~ the ~~brain, which commands~~ the body and its organs.<ref>Nūrī Hamadānī, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues, vol. 1, p. 253.</ref>		Many jurists, considering the concept of death to be sufficiently clear in customary and jurisprudential usage, have not devoted separate discussions to its terminological definition and have instead confined themselves to explaining its legal rulings.<ref>Āqābābāʾī, Organ Transplantation from Deceased and Brain-Dead Patients, p. 21.</ref> Nevertheless, a number of jurists have explicitly defined death as the separation and departure of the soul from the body.<ref>See: Khūʾī, al-Mawsūʿah al-Imām al-Khūʾī, vol. 2, p. 464; Meshkīnī, Muṣṭalaḥāt al-Fiqh, p. 552; Nūrī Hamadānī, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues, vol. 1, p. 253; Muḥsinī, al-Fiqh wa Masāʾil al-Ṭibbīyah, vol. 1, p. 129; Khodādādī, pp. 148–149.</ref>

			From this perspective, the reality of death in jurisprudential thought lies in the separation of the soul from the body. Consequently, the continued vitality of individual cells bears no necessary relation to the life of the human person, just as the death of certain cells does not in itself constitute human death.<ref>Āqābābāʾī, Organ Transplantation from Deceased and Brain-Dead Patients, p. 22.</ref> Among contemporary Shiʿi authorities, [[Husayn Nuri Hamadani\|Ḥusayn Nūrī Hamadānī]] maintains that once death is understood as the separation of the soul from the body, the failure of the brain signifies the occurrence of human death. This is because the brain functions as the central organ responsible for directing and governing the body and its organs.<ref>Nūrī Hamadānī, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues, vol. 1, p. 253.</ref>

	=== Signs of Death ===		=== Signs of Death ===

Sarfipour at 11:06, 28 December 2025

2025-12-28T11:06:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:06, 28 December 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Based on general principles of jurisprudential deduction, the applicability of legal rulings related to brain death—such as organ transplantation, continuation or cessation of medical treatment, liability for dīyah (blood money), and the performance of funeral rites—depends entirely on how the subject of brain death is identified.		Based on general principles of jurisprudential deduction, the applicability of legal rulings related to brain death—such as organ transplantation, continuation or cessation of medical treatment, liability for dīyah (blood money), and the performance of funeral rites—depends entirely on how the subject of brain death is identified.

	~~== Position of the Issue in Contemporary Jurisprudence ==~~
	Brain death is considered one of the emerging and controversial issues among contemporary jurists.<ref>Sotūdeh, Brain Death; Juridical-Legal Processing, p. 77.</ref> Given that emerging issues have no precedent in narrative and jurisprudential sources, jurists in these cases refer to laws and general jurisprudential principles to deduce their religious rulings.

	From a jurisprudential perspective, the main question regarding brain-dead patients is whether these individuals are considered alive or have the ruling of the deceased. This matter is important in the permissibility or impermissibility of stopping therapeutic procedures and using supportive medical equipment. Also, clarifying the status of a brain-dead patient is very important due to its connection with the issue of organ transplantation; because if such individuals are considered alive, transplanting vital organs of the body such as the heart and liver is not permissible from a religious standpoint. Today, transplanting organs from brain-dead patients, given the activity of other organs of these patients, is highly regarded.

	~~== Conceptualization ==~~
	=== Brain Death from a Medical Perspective ===		=== Brain Death from a Medical Perspective ===
	Brain death is the permanent cessation of brain functions ~~such as controlling and~~ regulating respiratory and cardiac activities.<ref>Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, pp. 42, 83.</ref> In brain ~~death,~~ severe and ~~serious~~ damage ~~is inflicted on~~ the ~~brain, and~~ parts of the cerebrum and brain stem ~~are destroyed~~.<ref>Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, p. 42.</ref> ~~In this state,~~ blood ~~supply~~ to the brain is ~~stopped,~~ and oxygen ~~does not reach it. Therefore~~, brain ~~tissues die~~, and the brain loses all ~~its functions; although~~ other body ~~organs~~ such as the heart, lungs, and kidneys ~~are active~~ with the ~~help~~ of ~~drugs~~ and medical ~~equipment~~, they will ~~also~~ cease functioning after a short period.<ref>See: Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, pp. 42–43, 83–84.</ref>		Brain death refers to the permanent and irreversible cessation of all vital brain functions, including those responsible for regulating respiratory and cardiac activities.<ref>Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, pp. 42, 83.</ref> In this condition, the brain sustains severe and extensive damage, resulting in the destruction of major parts of the cerebrum and the brain stem.<ref>Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, p. 42.</ref> As blood circulation to the brain is completely halted and oxygen no longer reaches neural tissues, brain cells undergo irreversible death, and the brain loses all functional capacity. Although other organs of the body, such as the heart, lungs, and kidneys, may continue to function temporarily with the assistance of medications and medical devices, they will inevitably cease functioning after a short period.<ref>See: Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, pp. 42–43, 83–84.</ref>

	~~In brain death, given~~ that brain tissues ~~such as~~ the cerebrum and brain stem ~~die~~ due to ~~lack of~~ oxygen, and ~~there is~~ no possibility of regeneration or transplantation, the ~~probability~~ of recovery for a brain-dead patient is ~~very low~~, and ~~such individuals will suffer certain~~ death ~~after~~ a short ~~period~~.<ref>Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, p. 43.</ref> The ~~difference~~ between brain death and coma ~~(unconsciousness) and~~ vegetative state lies in this point~~; "coma" is~~ a severe disturbance of consciousness~~, and there is a possibility of return to life in it; because~~ in ~~coma,~~ the brain ~~is still~~ alive, ~~and the patient breathes naturally; but~~ in brain death, the brain is destroyed, and ~~the probability~~ of return to life ~~is zero~~.<ref>See: Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, p. 83; Ḥabībī, Brain Death and Organ Transplantation, pp. 42–43~~.</ref> In brain death, unlike the coma state, the brain stem dies, and there is no vegetative life either.<ref>Ḥabībī, Brain Death and Organ Transplantation, p. 43~~.</ref>		Given that brain tissues, including the cerebrum and brain stem, are irreversibly destroyed due to prolonged oxygen deprivation and that no possibility of regeneration or transplantation exists, the likelihood of recovery for a brain-dead patient is effectively nonexistent. Such patients will, from a medical standpoint, experience certain and definitive death within a short time.<ref>Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, p. 43.</ref> The distinction between brain death and conditions such as coma or the vegetative state lies precisely at this point. Coma represents a severe disturbance of consciousness in which the brain remains alive and spontaneous breathing continues, making recovery possible in some cases. In contrast, in brain death the brain itself is destroyed, the brain stem has ceased functioning, and there is no possibility of return to life or persistence of vegetative life.<ref>See: Gūdarzī and Kiyānī, Forensic Medicine, p. 83; Ḥabībī, Brain Death and Organ Transplantation, pp. 42–43.</ref>

	=== Death from the Perspective of Jurists ===		=== Death from the Perspective of Jurists ===

Sarfipour at 03:55, 28 December 2025

2025-12-28T03:55:34Z

Show changes

Sarfipour at 03:54, 28 December 2025

2025-12-28T03:54:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:54, 28 December 2025
Line 12:		Line 12:
	* '''Abstract'''		* '''Abstract'''

	'''Brain Death''' (~~in persian~~: [[:fa~~:مرگ_مغزی\|~~مرگ مغزی]]) is the irreversible cessation of brain ~~activities~~. ~~This issue~~ is one of the emerging medical ~~matters and from a jurisprudential perspective, it falls under the category of~~ masāʾil mustaḥdathah ~~(emerging issues~~). ~~From~~ a medical ~~standpoint,~~ brain death ~~will lead~~ to ~~certain~~ death in a short period~~; however, from a jurisprudential viewpoint~~, ~~there is disagreement among~~ jurists ~~as to~~ whether ~~patients afflicted with~~ brain ~~death are~~ alive or dead. This disagreement ~~arises~~ from ~~the jurists' differences in~~ determining ~~and diagnosing~~ the subject of brain death.		'''Brain Death''' (Persian: [https://ency.feqhemoaser.com/fa/view/%D9%85%D8%B1%DA%AF_%D9%85%D8%BA%D8%B2%DB%8C مرگ مغزی]) refers to the irreversible cessation of all vital brain functions. It is regarded as one of the emerging medical issues (masāʾil mustaḥdathah) in contemporary Islamic jurisprudence, as it lacks a direct precedent in classical jurisprudential sources. Although from a medical perspective brain death inevitably leads to biological death within a short period, jurists differ over whether a brain-dead patient should be considered legally alive or dead. This disagreement primarily stems from divergent approaches to identifying and determining the subject (taḥqīq al-mawḍūʿ) of brain death.

	~~From the perspective of~~ some contemporary marājiʿ taqlīd ~~(sources of emulation)~~ such as [[Muhammad Fazel Lankarani\|Muḥammad Fāżel Lankarānī]] and [[Jawad Tabrizi]], the ~~diagnosis of the common people is valid in~~ determining the ~~subject, and since the common people consider~~ a brain-dead patient alive, ~~from a jurisprudential standpoint, such a person has the ruling of a~~ living ~~person~~. ~~A group of contemporary~~ jurists ~~such as~~ [[Husayn Ali Montazeri\|~~Ḥusayn-ʿAlī~~ Montazerī]], [[Naser Makarem Shirazi\|Nāṣer Makārem Shīrāzī]], and [[Husayn Nuri Hamadani\|Ḥusayn Nūrī Hamadānī]] ~~consider the criterion for determining whether brain-dead patients are alive or dead~~ to ~~be the diagnosis of the specific common~~ (ʿurf-e khāṣṣ) (specialist physicians). ~~According to the~~ general ~~rules~~ of deduction, the ~~application~~ of ~~all~~ rulings related to brain ~~death such~~ as organ transplantation, continuation or cessation of treatment, dīyah (blood money) ~~for organs~~, and ~~equipping~~ the ~~deceased is contingent upon diagnosing~~ the subject.		According to some contemporary Shiʿi marājiʿ al-taqlīd, such as [[Muhammad Fazel Lankarani\|Muḥammad Fāżel Lankarānī]] and [[Jawad Tabrizi\|Javād Tabrīzī]], the criterion for determining the status of a brain-dead patient is the judgment of general custom (ʿurf ʿāmm). Since common social understanding typically regards such patients as alive, they are considered legally living persons. In contrast, other jurists, including [[Husayn Ali Montazeri\|Ḥusayn‑ʿAlī Montazerī]], [[Naser Makarem Shirazi\|Nāṣer Makārem Shīrāzī]], and [[Husayn Nuri Hamadani\|Ḥusayn Nūrī Hamadānī]], assign authority to expert custom (ʿurf khāṣṣ), namely specialist physicians, in determining whether a brain-dead patient is alive or dead.

			Based on general principles of jurisprudential deduction, the applicability of legal rulings related to brain death—such as organ transplantation, continuation or cessation of medical treatment, liability for dīyah (blood money), and the performance of funeral rites—depends entirely on how the subject of brain death is identified.

	== Position of the Issue in Contemporary Jurisprudence ==		== Position of the Issue in Contemporary Jurisprudence ==

Sarfipour at 09:45, 16 December 2025

2025-12-16T09:45:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 16 December 2025
Line 90:		Line 90:
	* Nūrī Hamadānī, Ḥusayn, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues (Collection of Fatwas), Qom: Mahdī Mawʿūd (AJ), 1388 SH.		* Nūrī Hamadānī, Ḥusayn, A Thousand and One Jurisprudential Issues (Collection of Fatwas), Qom: Mahdī Mawʿūd (AJ), 1388 SH.
	[[fa:مرگ مغزی]]		[[fa:مرگ مغزی]]
			[[Category:Contemporary Jurisprudence Articles]]