تحلیل فقهی وضعیت شیوع بیماری‌های فراگیر با تأکید بر قاعده لاضرر
محورهای موضوعی : -اقتصاد بهداشت و درمانمصطفی رجبی باقرآباد 1 , زهره نیک فرجام 2 , ظهمورث شیری 3
1 - دانشجوی دکتری فقه و حقوق، واحد یادگار امام خمینی(ره)شهرری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
2 - استادیار، گروه فقه و حقوق، واحد یادگار امام خمینی(ره)شهرری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
3 - دانشیار گروه جامعه شناسی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: قاعده لاضرر و لاضرار, اعمال حقوقی و اجتماعی, شیوع بیماری‌های فراگیر,
چکیده مقاله :
مقدمه: همواره یکی از عوامل تهدیدکننده سلامت جامعه انسانی، شیوع بیماری‌های واگیردار بوده است. اگرچه با پیشرفت علم پزشکی بسیاری از این خطرات کاهش چشم گیری داشته است اما باز شاهدیم که بیماری ای نظیر کروناویروس، سلامت جوامع را با خطر جدی مواجه می نماید و در این راستا، هدف پژوهش حاضر، بررسی وضعیت شیوع بیماری‌های فراگیر به منظور بازنگری در تحلیل وضعیت مذکور، انتخاب شده است.روش پژوهش: این پژوهش، با روش توصیفی - تحلیلی است.یافته ها: برداشت ها از قلمروی قاعده لاضرر و لاضرار در پرتوی برداشت های متفاوت از مفاد آن بسیار متنوع است؛ به گونه ای که کاربرد آن را بسیار دشوار ساخته است. بنابراین به دنبال یافتن یک معیار مشخص پیشنهاد می شود که لاضرر را نفی نفس ضرر و لاضرار را منع ایراد ضرر بواسطه سوءاستفاده از حق تلقی کرده و معیار سوءاستفاده از حق نیز تخطی از رفتار متعارف در نظر گرفته شود.نتیجه گیری: مادامی که وضعیت شیوع بیماری‌های فراگیر وجود دارد، انتقال بیماری به مثابه ایراد ضرر است و بواسطه جریان قاعده لاضرر، انتقال و تسهیل سرایت بیماری ممنوع است و حتی اگر عملی که در وضعیت عادی، در حوزه حقوق اشخاص است، زمینه ساز انتقال بیماری و ایراد ضرر تلقی گردد، در وضعیت شیوع بیماری، رفتاری نامتعارف به شمار آمده و به واسطه بخش دوم قاعده که لاضرار باشد محدود و ممنوع می شود. هم‌چنین با توجه به آنکه در وضعیت مذکور، ضرر فردی در مقابل ضرر جامعه قرار می گیرد و ضرر جامعه اهم است، تعارض ضررها چالشی ایجاد نمی کند.
Introduction: The spread of infectious illnesses has been one of the elements that endangers society's health. Although many of these hazards have been greatly decreased as a result of medical science advancements, we have seen that diseases like the COVID-19, nevertheless constitute a severe threat to the health of all societies. This study aims to analyze the prevalence of widespread illnesses in order to evaluate the analysis of the aforementioned situation, taking into account the evolution of social and legal systems in societies.Methods: This study was conducted using a descriptive-analytical approach.Findings: In light of various interpretations of its contents, the domain of innocuous and harmless regulations has many distinct meanings, which makes its application highly challenging. After establishing a particular criterion, it is suggested that harmlessness is the absence of injury and the prohibition of producing harm as a result of the abuse of rights, with the criterion of abuse of rights being seen as a breach of accepted conduct.Conclusion: As long as there is a broad illness outbreak, the disease's transmission is seen as damage, and because of the rule of harmlessness, the disease's transmission and facilitation are forbidden. Even though an act that falls under the purview of an individual's rights in a typical circumstance is thought to be the source of disease transmission and harm, in the event of a disease outbreak, it is regarded as unusual behavior and is limited or prohibited due to the second part of the rule that it is harmless. The conflict between losses does not provide a problem since, in the circumstances described, the individual loss is contrasted to society's loss, and society's loss is significant.
1- Taqvai A. Lerkjuri A. International Law and Pandemic Diseases (Case Study: Corona Virus), Political Strategy Magazine, 2020; 13(2): 1-15.
2- Safari A. Sabri R. Laki Z. Rezaei A. The effect of the spread of the disease of Covid-19 and social distancing on the crime rate. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Research, 2021; 17(1): 209-237.
3- Zarundi Rahmani H. The extent of authority and responsibility of the government in creating restrictions for corona patients and its basics. Answer magazine, 2020; 18: 99-124.
4- Ehsani Far A. Jurisprudence and legal dimensions of dangerous and fast-spreading infectious diseases (coronavirus) from the point of view of the principle of the obligation to prevent possible harm. Jornal of Islamic Law, 2020; 64(1): 244-255.
5- Yazdanian A. Thaghafi M. civil responsibility of patients suffering from contagious diseases. Journal of Civil Jurisprudence, 2014; 10(3): 31-50.
6- Fayyūmi AIM. Al-Mesbāh Al-Monir Fi Qarib Al-Sharh Al-Kabir Li Al-Rāfe’ei. Vol.2. Qom: Dar Al-Razi: (no date): 360.
7- Firouzabadi M. Al-Qāmūs Al-Mohit, vol.2. Beirut: Dar Al-Ehya’a Al-Torath; 1992: 75.
8- Jawhari I. Sahhāh Al-Loqah. Beirut: Dar Al-Elm Al-Mala’ein; 2004: 719.
9- Jezri M. Al-Nehāyah Fi Gharib Al-Hadith WA Al-Athar, Vol.3. Qom: Esma’eiliyan Publication Institute; 2004: 81.
10- Khansari Najafi M. Moniyah Al-Tāleb (lessons from Mirzay-e-Na’eini). Vol.3. Qom: Islamic Publication Institute; 1998: 378-379.
11- Musavi Khomeini R. Al-Rasāyel, Vol.1. Qom: Esma’eiliyan; 2006: 28.
12- Naraghi A. Awāyed Al-Ayyām Fi Bayān Qawā’Ed Al-Ahkām WA Mohemmāt Masāyel Al-Halāl WA Al-Harām. Qom: Bustan-e-ketab; 1996: 17-18.
13- Akhond Khorāsāni M. Kefāyah Al-Osūl. Qom: Mo’assessah Āl-e-Bayt (PBUT); 1989: 381.
14- Sobhani Tabrizi J. Neil Al-Watr Min Qā’edah Lā Zarar. Qom: Imam Sadeq (PBUH) Institute; 2000: 61.
15- Azizi Ghahfarakhi S. comparing the notions of Sheikh Ansāri with notions of Ayatollah Makārem about the axiom of no loss, Thesis, Yazd: Payam-e-Noor University, Yazd Branch; 2019: 12.
16- Sobhani Tabrizi J. Tahzib Al-Osūl. Vol.2. Qom: Islamic Publication Institute, 1984; 66, 88-89.
17- Makarem Shirazi N. Al-Qawā’Ed Al-Fiqhiyeh. Vol.1. Qom: Imam Ali (PBUH) School; 2010: 56-69.
18- Musavi Bojnourdi SM. Nahidi S. jurisprudential-legal investigation of the limits of civil and criminal liabilities of the HIV AIDs’ transmitters with an approach to the ideas of his highness Imam Khomeini. Theological Treatise, 2008; 2(3): 6-21.
19- Mohaqqeq Damad SM. jurisprudential regulations. Vol.1. Tehran: Islamic Sciences Publication Center; 1986: 141.
20- Aghili B. Ibn Aghil’s explications. Vol.1. Tehran: Esteghlal; 2005: 365-366.
21- Bojnourdi SH. jurisprudential regulations. Vol.1. Qom: Al-Hadi; 1999: 224-182.
22- Musavi Khou’ei A. Mesbāh Al-Osūl. Vol.2. Qom: Maktabah Al-Dawari: 1997: 527,546.
23- Ansari SM. Dorar Al-Fawā’ed Fi Hāshiyah Ala Al-Farā’ed. Vol.2. Tehran: Islamic Guidance and Culture Ministry’s publication institute: (no date); 534-535: 327.
24- Reza’ei Rad A. the realm of No-Loss Axiom’s effectiveness. Journal of Islamic Laws, 2010; 2(25): 71-75.
25- Nazarpur Najafabadi E. investigating the axiom of no loss and its effect on the cases for which no verdict has been issued. MA Thesis. Azarbaijan: Shahid Madani University. Azerbaijan Branch; 2014: 23.
26- Sobhani Tabrizi J. Neil Al-Watr Min Qā’edah Lā Zarar. Qom: Imam Sadeq (PBUH) Institute; 2010: 42.
27- Fazel Tuni A. Al-Wāfiyeh Fi Al-Osūl Al-Fiqh. Qom: Islamic Mindset Association; 1992: 194.
28- Musavi Khomeini R. Bedāye’e Al-Dorar Fi Qā’edah Nafy-e-Lā Zarar. Tehran: the institute for the compilation and publication of Imam Khomeini’s works; 2009: 108.
29- Tabatabai Qomi ST. Al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah fi al-Qasas al-Fiqhiyyah. Qom: Mahalati Publishing House; 1999: 390.
30- Shabani H. Re-examination of the concept of harm and harm and the provisions of the rule of harm and harm. Jornal of Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt (PBUT), 2015; 81-82: 244-250.
31- Koleini MIY. Al-Kafi. Vol.5. Tehran: Dar al-Kitab al-Islamiya; 1986: 293-294.
32- Sheikh Sadouq AM. Man La-Yahzor-oh al-Faqih. Vol. 3. Qom: Islamic Publishing Office; 1992: 233.
33- Sheikh Tousi MIH. Tahzib al-Ahkam. Vol.7. Tehran: Dar al-Kotob al-Islamia; 1986: 147.
34- Bahrami Ahmadi H. Abuse of Right. Tehran: Etelaat Publication; 1991: 201.
35- Sheikh Tousi MIH. Al-Mabsout Fiqh al-Imamia. Vol.3. Tehran: al-Maktaba al-Mortazavia li-Ihya al-Asar al-Jafaria; 2008: 273.
36- Allameh Helli HIY. Qavaed al-Ahkam fi Marefa al-Halal WA al-Haram. Qairo: Maktaba al-Shora; 1992: 268.
37- Shabani Kandsari H. Rethinking the criterion and scope of guaranteeing the implementation of the rule of harmless and non-harmful. Jornal of Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt (PBUT) ,2015: 83(3): 101-142.
38- Hosseini Ameli SJ. Meftah al-Karama fi Sharh Qavaed al-Allama. Vol.19. Qom: Islamic Publishing Office; 1998: 369.
39- Haeri SA. Ryad al-Masael. Vol.14. Qom: Al al-Bayt (PBUT); 1997: 121.
40- Moqadas Ardebili A. Majma al-Faedeh WA al-Borhan. Vol.10. Qom: Islamic Publishing Office; 1982: 502.
41- Ameli (Shahid Tani) Z. Masalek al-Afham ela Tanqih Sharaye al-Islam. Vol.12. Qom: Maaref al-Islamia Institute; 1992: 166.
42- Sabzevari MB. Kefaya al-Ahkam. Vol.2. Qom: Islamic Publishing Office: 636.
43- Najafi MH. Javaher al-Kalam fi Sharh Sharaye al-Islam. Vol.37. Tehran: Dar al-Kotob al-Islamia; 1947: 59-62.
44- Bartlett JD. Jaanus SD. clinical ocular pharmacology. Elsevier health sciences; 2008: 71.
45- Morissette EL. personal injury and the law of torts for paralegals. Aspen publishers; 2009: 14.
46- Amel DadKhodaei M. Examining the applications of the rule of obligation to prevent possible loss in hurisprudence texts. MA Thesis. Mashhad: Ferdowsi University; 2017: 28.
47- Javaheri H. Bohuth Fi Al_Fiqh Al-Mo’aser. Beirut: Dar Al-Zakha’er; 1999: 402. 410.
48- Mohseni Ghandehari MA. Al-Fiqh WA Al-Masāyel Al-Tebbiyeh. Qom: Islamic Promotion Office; 2005: 174.
49- Meshkini A. jurisprudential terms. Qom: Loqman; 1993: 91.
_||_1- Taqvai A. Lerkjuri A. International Law and Pandemic Diseases (Case Study: Corona Virus), Political Strategy Magazine, 2020; 13(2): 1-15.
2- Safari A. Sabri R. Laki Z. Rezaei A. The effect of the spread of the disease of Covid-19 and social distancing on the crime rate. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Research, 2021; 17(1): 209-237.
3- Zarundi Rahmani H. The extent of authority and responsibility of the government in creating restrictions for corona patients and its basics. Answer magazine, 2020; 18: 99-124.
4- Ehsani Far A. Jurisprudence and legal dimensions of dangerous and fast-spreading infectious diseases (coronavirus) from the point of view of the principle of the obligation to prevent possible harm. Jornal of Islamic Law, 2020; 64(1): 244-255.
5- Yazdanian A. Thaghafi M. civil responsibility of patients suffering from contagious diseases. Journal of Civil Jurisprudence, 2014; 10(3): 31-50.
6- Fayyūmi AIM. Al-Mesbāh Al-Monir Fi Qarib Al-Sharh Al-Kabir Li Al-Rāfe’ei. Vol.2. Qom: Dar Al-Razi: (no date): 360.
7- Firouzabadi M. Al-Qāmūs Al-Mohit, vol.2. Beirut: Dar Al-Ehya’a Al-Torath; 1992: 75.
8- Jawhari I. Sahhāh Al-Loqah. Beirut: Dar Al-Elm Al-Mala’ein; 2004: 719.
9- Jezri M. Al-Nehāyah Fi Gharib Al-Hadith WA Al-Athar, Vol.3. Qom: Esma’eiliyan Publication Institute; 2004: 81.
10- Khansari Najafi M. Moniyah Al-Tāleb (lessons from Mirzay-e-Na’eini). Vol.3. Qom: Islamic Publication Institute; 1998: 378-379.
11- Musavi Khomeini R. Al-Rasāyel, Vol.1. Qom: Esma’eiliyan; 2006: 28.
12- Naraghi A. Awāyed Al-Ayyām Fi Bayān Qawā’Ed Al-Ahkām WA Mohemmāt Masāyel Al-Halāl WA Al-Harām. Qom: Bustan-e-ketab; 1996: 17-18.
13- Akhond Khorāsāni M. Kefāyah Al-Osūl. Qom: Mo’assessah Āl-e-Bayt (PBUT); 1989: 381.
14- Sobhani Tabrizi J. Neil Al-Watr Min Qā’edah Lā Zarar. Qom: Imam Sadeq (PBUH) Institute; 2000: 61.
15- Azizi Ghahfarakhi S. comparing the notions of Sheikh Ansāri with notions of Ayatollah Makārem about the axiom of no loss, Thesis, Yazd: Payam-e-Noor University, Yazd Branch; 2019: 12.
16- Sobhani Tabrizi J. Tahzib Al-Osūl. Vol.2. Qom: Islamic Publication Institute, 1984; 66, 88-89.
17- Makarem Shirazi N. Al-Qawā’Ed Al-Fiqhiyeh. Vol.1. Qom: Imam Ali (PBUH) School; 2010: 56-69.
18- Musavi Bojnourdi SM. Nahidi S. jurisprudential-legal investigation of the limits of civil and criminal liabilities of the HIV AIDs’ transmitters with an approach to the ideas of his highness Imam Khomeini. Theological Treatise, 2008; 2(3): 6-21.
19- Mohaqqeq Damad SM. jurisprudential regulations. Vol.1. Tehran: Islamic Sciences Publication Center; 1986: 141.
20- Aghili B. Ibn Aghil’s explications. Vol.1. Tehran: Esteghlal; 2005: 365-366.
21- Bojnourdi SH. jurisprudential regulations. Vol.1. Qom: Al-Hadi; 1999: 224-182.
22- Musavi Khou’ei A. Mesbāh Al-Osūl. Vol.2. Qom: Maktabah Al-Dawari: 1997: 527,546.
23- Ansari SM. Dorar Al-Fawā’ed Fi Hāshiyah Ala Al-Farā’ed. Vol.2. Tehran: Islamic Guidance and Culture Ministry’s publication institute: (no date); 534-535: 327.
24- Reza’ei Rad A. the realm of No-Loss Axiom’s effectiveness. Journal of Islamic Laws, 2010; 2(25): 71-75.
25- Nazarpur Najafabadi E. investigating the axiom of no loss and its effect on the cases for which no verdict has been issued. MA Thesis. Azarbaijan: Shahid Madani University. Azerbaijan Branch; 2014: 23.
26- Sobhani Tabrizi J. Neil Al-Watr Min Qā’edah Lā Zarar. Qom: Imam Sadeq (PBUH) Institute; 2010: 42.
27- Fazel Tuni A. Al-Wāfiyeh Fi Al-Osūl Al-Fiqh. Qom: Islamic Mindset Association; 1992: 194.
28- Musavi Khomeini R. Bedāye’e Al-Dorar Fi Qā’edah Nafy-e-Lā Zarar. Tehran: the institute for the compilation and publication of Imam Khomeini’s works; 2009: 108.
29- Tabatabai Qomi ST. Al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah fi al-Qasas al-Fiqhiyyah. Qom: Mahalati Publishing House; 1999: 390.
30- Shabani H. Re-examination of the concept of harm and harm and the provisions of the rule of harm and harm. Jornal of Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt (PBUT), 2015; 81-82: 244-250.
31- Koleini MIY. Al-Kafi. Vol.5. Tehran: Dar al-Kitab al-Islamiya; 1986: 293-294.
32- Sheikh Sadouq AM. Man La-Yahzor-oh al-Faqih. Vol. 3. Qom: Islamic Publishing Office; 1992: 233.
33- Sheikh Tousi MIH. Tahzib al-Ahkam. Vol.7. Tehran: Dar al-Kotob al-Islamia; 1986: 147.
34- Bahrami Ahmadi H. Abuse of Right. Tehran: Etelaat Publication; 1991: 201.
35- Sheikh Tousi MIH. Al-Mabsout Fiqh al-Imamia. Vol.3. Tehran: al-Maktaba al-Mortazavia li-Ihya al-Asar al-Jafaria; 2008: 273.
36- Allameh Helli HIY. Qavaed al-Ahkam fi Marefa al-Halal WA al-Haram. Qairo: Maktaba al-Shora; 1992: 268.
37- Shabani Kandsari H. Rethinking the criterion and scope of guaranteeing the implementation of the rule of harmless and non-harmful. Jornal of Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt (PBUT) ,2015: 83(3): 101-142.
38- Hosseini Ameli SJ. Meftah al-Karama fi Sharh Qavaed al-Allama. Vol.19. Qom: Islamic Publishing Office; 1998: 369.
39- Haeri SA. Ryad al-Masael. Vol.14. Qom: Al al-Bayt (PBUT); 1997: 121.
40- Moqadas Ardebili A. Majma al-Faedeh WA al-Borhan. Vol.10. Qom: Islamic Publishing Office; 1982: 502.
41- Ameli (Shahid Tani) Z. Masalek al-Afham ela Tanqih Sharaye al-Islam. Vol.12. Qom: Maaref al-Islamia Institute; 1992: 166.
42- Sabzevari MB. Kefaya al-Ahkam. Vol.2. Qom: Islamic Publishing Office: 636.
43- Najafi MH. Javaher al-Kalam fi Sharh Sharaye al-Islam. Vol.37. Tehran: Dar al-Kotob al-Islamia; 1947: 59-62.
44- Bartlett JD. Jaanus SD. clinical ocular pharmacology. Elsevier health sciences; 2008: 71.
45- Morissette EL. personal injury and the law of torts for paralegals. Aspen publishers; 2009: 14.
46- Amel DadKhodaei M. Examining the applications of the rule of obligation to prevent possible loss in hurisprudence texts. MA Thesis. Mashhad: Ferdowsi University; 2017: 28.
47- Javaheri H. Bohuth Fi Al_Fiqh Al-Mo’aser. Beirut: Dar Al-Zakha’er; 1999: 402. 410.
48- Mohseni Ghandehari MA. Al-Fiqh WA Al-Masāyel Al-Tebbiyeh. Qom: Islamic Promotion Office; 2005: 174.
49- Meshkini A. jurisprudential terms. Qom: Loqman; 1993: 91.
