Encyclopedia of Contemporary Jurisprudence

Brain Death: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Sarfipour (talk | contribs)
2,291 edits
No edit summary
Sarfipour (talk | contribs)
2,291 edits
No edit summary
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 ==
Retrieved from "https://ency.feqhemoaser.com/en/view/Brain_Death"