چکیده:
The accelerated movement of medicine and the multiplicity of newly created subjects in this field undoubtedly require alignment with Sharia standards to capture appropriate jurisprudential-legal rulings. One of the controversial contemporary issues, resulting from the progress of modern biomedical technologies in recent decades, is the subject of brain death and the jurisprudential and legal challenges related to the effects and rulings stemming from this condition. Undoubtedly, the main prerequisite for understanding the rulings and rights of those suffering from brain death is the ontology of brain death and its connection to true death. In this regard, various opinions have been presented, but the selected view is the acceptance of the concept of the simultaneity of brain death, after its state of corruption, with the departure of the soul. The basis of this view is the acceptance of the authority of specific custom (Urf) in this matter and the jurist's certainty regarding the consensus of specialists on the unity of brain death with natural death. Under this assumption, the principle is that the rulings for a definitive deceased person apply to the individual suffering from brain death, and based on this, they lack legal personality and capacity; specifically, they are excluded from the subject and ruling of interdiction (Hajr), and it is obvious that any form of representation, such as power of attorney, executorship, guardianship, and trusteeship, is also revoked. However, according to verbal evidence, the rulings for preparing a corpse cannot be applied to them until the body becomes cold; nevertheless, the opinion of the permissibility of harvesting transplantable organs is possible in two cases: necessity or the permission of the guardian of Muslims.
خلاصه ماشینی:
com Brain Death; From Nature to Jurisprudential-Legal Rulings and Effects Modern medicine, following scientific advancements and increased attention to human brain physiology, proposed the theory of "one stage higher than coma" in the late 1950s, stating that in this condition, the brain has suffered irreversible damage and, despite cardiac and respiratory activity maintained through artificial methods, its function has completely ceased.
Since the jurist, due to constant practice with jurisprudential issues and subjects, acts more strongly in diagnosing these subjects and possesses extraordinary insight and power of deduction compared to the custom of the people, he can take upon himself the diagnosis of these subjects and issue the ruling; for example, one can mention a perceived change in color to an impure color in dark waters; meaning, does such a transformation count as an instance of the title "change" in narrations such as "خلق الله الماء طهورا لا ينجسه شي ء إلا ما غير لونه او طعمه او ريحه " (Hurr al-Amili, 1409 AH, Vol. 1, p.
Therefore, by carefully considering the views of the jurists who have expressed opinions regarding organ transplantation from the brain-dead, it becomes completely clear that they have considered the authorization to harvest transplantable organs from the aforementioned person to be based on the assumption of a state of necessity (the preservation and salvation of a Muslim's life) (Imam Khomeini, 1422 AH, Vol. 2, p.
(
, 
, 
)
