Euthanasia: Difference between revisions

Sarfipour (talk | contribs)
Sarfipour (talk | contribs)
 
Line 84: Line 84:
====Indirect Euthanasia====
====Indirect Euthanasia====
Regarding the declarative ruling of euthanasia, considering the patient's permission and consent to its performance or their lack thereof, there is a difference of opinion among jurists. One of the issues that has been discussed in Shia jurisprudence in the past and can be used in this context now is that if someone tells another, "Kill me, or I will kill you," can he kill him? And if he kills him, is retribution or blood money established for him?<ref>Ansari, "Mercy Killing," p. 133.</ref> There are two views on this issue:
Regarding the declarative ruling of euthanasia, considering the patient's permission and consent to its performance or their lack thereof, there is a difference of opinion among jurists. One of the issues that has been discussed in Shia jurisprudence in the past and can be used in this context now is that if someone tells another, "Kill me, or I will kill you," can he kill him? And if he kills him, is retribution or blood money established for him?<ref>Ansari, "Mercy Killing," p. 133.</ref> There are two views on this issue:
# '''Forfeiture of the Right to Retribution and Blood Money:''' According to jurists such as Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, Shahid al-Thani, the author of Jawahir, Sayyid Abd al-A'la Sabzevari, and [[Sayyid Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini|Sayyid Ruhollah Khomeini]], since the victim consented to his own murder, he has forfeited the right to retribution and blood money.<ref>Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, *Shara'i' al-Islam*, vol. 4, p. 185; Najafi, *Jawahir al-Kalam*, vol. 42, p. 54; Shahid al-Thani, *Masalik al-Afham*, vol. 15, p. 89; Sabzevari, *Muhadhdhab al-Ahkam*, vol. 28, p. 199; Khomeini, *Tahrir al-Wasilah*, vol. 2, p. 489.</ref>
# '''Forfeiture of the Right to Retribution and Blood Money:''' According to jurists such as Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, Shahid al-Thani, the author of Jawahir, Sayyid Abd al-A'la Sabzevari, and [[Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini]], since the victim consented to his own murder, he has forfeited the right to retribution and blood money.<ref>Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, *Shara'i' al-Islam*, vol. 4, p. 185; Najafi, *Jawahir al-Kalam*, vol. 42, p. 54; Shahid al-Thani, *Masalik al-Afham*, vol. 15, p. 89; Sabzevari, *Muhadhdhab al-Ahkam*, vol. 28, p. 199; Khomeini, *Tahrir al-Wasilah*, vol. 2, p. 489.</ref>
# '''Non-forfeiture of the Right to Retribution and Blood Money:''' According to jurists such as Sayyid Abulqasim Khoei, Mirza Jawad Tabrizi, and [[Ja'far Sobhani]], even with the victim's consent and permission for his own murder, the right to retribution and blood money is not forfeited.<ref>Khoei, *Mabani Takmilat al-Minhaj*, vol. 42, p. 18; Tabrizi, *Tanqih Mabani al-Ahkam*, pp. 47-48; Sobhani, *Ahkam al-Qisas fi al-Shari'ah al-Islamiyyah al-Gharra'*, p. 93.</ref> Because, unlike what applies to property, a person does not have authority over their own destruction, so their permission for their own destruction does not cause the forfeiture of liability. Therefore, the general applicability of the evidence for retribution includes this case as well.<ref>Khoei, *Mabani Takmilat al-Minhaj*, vol. 42, p. 18; Tabrizi, *Tanqih Mabani al-Ahkam*, pp. 47-48; Sobhani, *Ahkam al-Qisas fi al-Shari'ah al-Islamiyyah al-Gharra'*, p. 93.</ref> [[Sayyid Mohammad Sadiq Rouhani]], in criticizing this view, has said that a person is the owner of their own life, limbs, and actions, and therefore, with permission and consent to their own destruction and murder, the right to retribution and blood money is forfeited.<ref>Rouhani, *Fiqh al-Sadiq*, vol. 26, p. 34.</ref>
# '''Non-forfeiture of the Right to Retribution and Blood Money:''' According to jurists such as Sayyid Abulqasim Khoei, Mirza Jawad Tabrizi, and [[Ja'far Sobhani]], even with the victim's consent and permission for his own murder, the right to retribution and blood money is not forfeited.<ref>Khoei, *Mabani Takmilat al-Minhaj*, vol. 42, p. 18; Tabrizi, *Tanqih Mabani al-Ahkam*, pp. 47-48; Sobhani, *Ahkam al-Qisas fi al-Shari'ah al-Islamiyyah al-Gharra'*, p. 93.</ref> Because, unlike what applies to property, a person does not have authority over their own destruction, so their permission for their own destruction does not cause the forfeiture of liability. Therefore, the general applicability of the evidence for retribution includes this case as well.<ref>Khoei, *Mabani Takmilat al-Minhaj*, vol. 42, p. 18; Tabrizi, *Tanqih Mabani al-Ahkam*, pp. 47-48; Sobhani, *Ahkam al-Qisas fi al-Shari'ah al-Islamiyyah al-Gharra'*, p. 93.</ref> [[Sayyid Mohammad Sadiq Rouhani]], in criticizing this view, has said that a person is the owner of their own life, limbs, and actions, and therefore, with permission and consent to their own destruction and murder, the right to retribution and blood money is forfeited.<ref>Rouhani, *Fiqh al-Sadiq*, vol. 26, p. 34.</ref>