مسئولیت مدنی پزشکان در خطاهای پزشکی در سیستمهای قضایی و فقه امامیه
محورهای موضوعی : Medical law
1 - کارشناس ارشد حقوق خصوصی، گروه حقوق، موسسه آموزش عالی احرار، رشت، ایران.
کلید واژه: مسئولیت مدنی پزشکان, خطای پزشکی, فقه امامیه, سیستم های قضایی.,
چکیده مقاله :
این پژوهش با رویکردی تطبیقی-تحلیلی، مسئولیت مدنی پزشکان را در سه عرصه حقوقی، فقهی و قضایی واکاوی کرده و با روش شناسی ترکیبی(کتابخانه ای، تحلیلی و تطبیقی)، نظام مسئولیت پزشکی را در سه محور اصلی (مبانی نظری، چالشهای دادرسی و آسیب شناسی رویه قضایی) بررسی میکند. و با پیشنهاد یک نظام ترکیبی با تأکید بر راهکارهای عملی مانند بیمه مسئولیت حرفهای، صندوق جبران خسارت ملی و دادگاههای تخصصی پزشکی، الگویی بهینه ارائه میدهد که هم چالشهای نظام حقوقی ایران (مانند تلفیق ناقص فقه و حقوق مدون و ضعف جبران خسارات معنوی) را پوشش میدهد و هم از تجارب بین المللی (کاهش ۴۰% هزینه دادرسی در سیستمهای بدون تقصیر و کارآمدی نظامهای مختلط) بهره میبرد. نوآوری تحقیق در ارائه "مدل بومی مسئولیت سلسله مراتبی" (تفکیک مسئولیت پزشک، نهادهای درمانی و دولت) و طراحی مکانیسم ضمانت اجرای حکیمانه تلفیق کننده قاعده اتلاف، ماده ۱ مسئولیت مدنی و عدالت ترمیمی است. این الگوی آینده نگر، راهبردی جامع برای اصلاح دادرسی پزشکی، همسو با فقه امامیه و استانداردهای جهانی، پیش میکشد.
This research adopts a comparative-analytical approach to examine the civil liability of physicians across three domains: legal, jurisprudential (Fiqh), and judicial. Utilizing a mixed methodology (library research, analytical, and comparative), it evaluates the medical liability system through three main axes: (theoretical foundations, litigation challenges, and pathology of judicial practices). By proposing a hybrid system emphasizing practical solutions—such as professional liability insurance, a national compensation fund, and specialized medical courts—the study presents an optimized model. This model addresses the challenges of Iran's legal system (e.g., the incomplete integration of Fiqh and codified law, and inadequate compensation for moral damages) while leveraging international experiences (e.g., a 40% reduction in litigation costs in no-fault systems and the efficacy of mixed systems). The research innovates by introducing a "tiered indigenous liability model" (distinguishing the liability of physicians, medical institutions, and the state) and designing a "wise enforcement mechanism" that integrates the principle of Etlaf (unlawful destruction), Article 1 of civil liability law, and restorative justice. This forward-looking model proposes a comprehensive strategy for reforming medical litigation, aligning with Imamiya jurisprudence (Shiite Islamic law) and global standards.
1. Accident Compensation Act 1972 (New Zealand).
2. Ahmadi Esfahani, S. M. M., & Rajabzadeh Baghi, M. (2023). [Legal explanation of the nature of obtaining acquittance (Barā’at) and its effect on the civil liability of physicians and medical centers]. Tehran: Journal of Legal Studies, 35(New), 333–351. [In Persian]
3. Al-Hilli, I. (1989). Qawa'id al-Ahkam [The Rules of Jurisprudence] (Vol. 1). Qom: Islamic Publishing Foundation. [In Arabic]
4. Al-Hurr al-Amili, M. (1995). Wasa'il al-Shi'a [The Means of the Shi'a] (Vol. 19). Qom: Mu'assasat Āl al-Bayt. [In Arabic]
5. Al-Najafi, M. H. (1983). Jawahir al-Kalam [The Jewels of Discourse] (Vol. 37). Beirut: Dar Ihya' al-Turath al-Arabi. [In Arabic]
6. Annual Judicial Performance Report. (2022). Tehran: General Prosecutor's Office of Iran. [In Persian]
7. Annual Report on the Medical Expert System (2022). Tehran: Ministry of Justice Publications. [In Persian]
8. Bismark, M. M., & Paterson, R. (2021). No-fault compensation for medical injury: A review of international systems. New Zealand: Health Policy, 125(7), 891-899.
9. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]. (London, UK)
10. Brennan, T. A., et al. (1991). Incidence of Adverse Events and Negligence in Hospitalized Patients. Boston, MA: New England Journal of Medicine, 324(6), 370-376.
11. Brennan, T. A., et al. (2006). The Nature and Frequency of Medical Error in Primary Care. London, UK: BMJ, 332(7538), 1958-1960.
12. Civil Liability Law of Iran (1960). Tehran: Iranian Parliament. [In Persian]
13. Code of Criminal Procedure of Iran (2013). Tehran: Islamic Parliament Research Center. [In Persian]
14. Disciplinary Regulations for Medical Practitioners (1999). Tehran: Iranian Medical Council. [In Persian]
15. European Court of Human Rights (2006). Case of Z v. Finland, Application No. 22009/93, (Strasbourg, France)
16. European Court of Human Rights. (2006). Case of Öneryıldız v. Turkey, no. 48939/99. (Strasbourg, France)
17. French Civil Code. Paris: Legifrance.
18. German Civil Code. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Justice.
19. https://ara.jri.ac.ir/Judge/Text/38472. Tehran: Retrieved March 26, 2025.
20. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/patient-safety. Geneva, Switzerland: Retrieved March 28, 2025 ,
21. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). New York: United Nations.
22. Islamic Penal Code of Iran (2013). Tehran: Islamic Parliament Research Center. [In Persian]
23. Jafari Nadoushan AA, Rahmani Manshadi H. Civil Liability Arising from Health and Medical Research. Tehran: J Community Health Research. 2023; 12(2): 285-296. [In Persian]
24. Judicial Statistics Center. (2021). Annual Judicial Performance Report. Tehran: Iranian Judiciary Press. [In Persian]
25. Kachalia, A., et al. (2010). Liability Claims and Costs Before and After Implementation of a Medical Error Disclosure Program. Philadelphia, PA: Annals of Internal Medicine, 153(6), 358-365.
26. Loi n° 2002-303 du 4 mars 2002 relative aux droits des malades et à la qualité du système de santé. (Paris, France)
27. Maboudi, J., Fallah, A., & Faghihi, A. (2023). Civil liability of physicians from the perspective of Imamiyyah jurisprudence and Iranian law. Tehran: Iranian Journal of Political Sociology, 5(11), 3809–3823.
28. Makarem Shirazi, N. (2007). Anwar al-Fiqaha [Lights of Jurisprudence] (Vol. 1). Qom: Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib School.
29. Mello, M. M., Frakes, M. D., Blumenkranz, E., & Studdert, D. M. (2020). Medical malpractice litigation in the United States. Boston, MA: New England Journal of Medicine, 382(3), 212-223.
30. Mello, M. M., Frakes, M. D., Blumenkranz, E., & Studdert, D. M. (2020). Medical malpractice litigation in the United States. Boston, MA: New England Journal of Medicine, 382(3), 212-223.
31. Mohammadi, A. (2021). Medical liability in Iran: Between Islamic law and civil law. Tehran : International Journal of Health Policy, 10(2), 80-92. [In Persian]
32. Mohammadi, A. (2021). Medical liability in Iran: Between Islamic law and civil law. Tehran: International Journal of Health Policy, 10(2), 80-92. [In Persian]
33. OECD (2020). Paris, France: "Medical Malpractice Systems: A Comparative Study"
34. Oliphant, K. (2019). No-fault compensation in the EU: A comparative perspective. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
35. Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, W. P. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed.). West Publishing. p. 244. St. Paul, Minnesota
36. Sharifi, A. (2010). The foundations of physicians’ civil liability in Imamiyyah jurisprudence Qom: Juristic Research Journal, 2(2), 123–162. Al-Mustafa International University. [In Persian]
37. Studdert, D. M., et al. (2006). Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation. Boston, MA: New England Journal of Medicine, 354(19), 283-291.
38. Studdert, D. M., et al. (2023). Medical malpractice reform in the U.S.: A systematic review. Chicago, IL: JAMA, 329(5), 456-468.
39. Tabatabai Yazdi, S. M. (1999). Al-Urwa al-Wuthqa [The Firmest Bond] (Vol. 2). Qom: Islamic Publishing Foundation.
40. United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2007). General Comment No. 32 (para. 35). New York: UN.
41. Yazdi, S. M. K. (2008). Qawa'id fiqh (Civil Section) (Vol. 2). Qom: Islamic Publications. [In Persian]
42. Zahedi, F., & Larijani, B. (2022). Medical error disclosure and mediation in Iran: Challenges and opportunities. Tehran: Journal of Medical Ethics, 48(3), 180-187.
