انجمن علمی فقه و حقوق خانواده ایران فصلنامه علمی فقه و حقوق نوین 2717-1469 8 27 2026 04 21 Liability of Physicians in Surgical and Medical Treatment and ItsComparison with Egypt and Turkey مسئولیت پزشک در عملیات جراحی و درمان و مقایسه آن با کشور مصر و ترکیه 1 16 735383 10.22034/jml.2026.735383 FA Journal Article The liability of physicians in surgical operations and medical treatment is one of the most sensitive manifestations of professional liability in contemporary law, as it is directly related to the fundamental human rights to life, physical health, and human dignity. Surgery, as a deliberate yet inherently risky intervention in the human body, constantly raises a fundamental legal question: in the event of harm, to what extent should a physician be held liable, and how can a balance be established between protecting the patient and safeguarding the professional and scientific security of physicians?Focusing on this challenge, the present study examines the nature and foundations of physicians’ liability in surgery and medical treatment. Using an analytical–comparative method, this research analyzes physician liability within the legal systems of Iran, Egypt, and Turkey. In Iranian law, physician liability is generally analyzed on the basis of fault and within the framework of an obligation of means, where the establishment of medical negligence, causal relationship, and occurrence of damage play decisive roles. In Egyptian law, in addition to fault, the element of an “unlawful act” occupies an independent position in the analysis of liability and expands the scope of patient protection. In Turkish law, the standard of professional care and the conformity of the physician’s conduct with accepted scientific standards constitute the principal criteria for assessing liability in surgical procedures.The findings of this study indicate that although the common basis of physician liability in all three legal systems is the principle of fault, differences in the role of informed consent, the methods of proving negligence, and the legal consequences of liability have led to distinct approaches. The comparative analysis suggests that strengthening a human-centered perspective on patients’ rights, alongside clarifying professional medical standards and developing specialized mechanisms for adjudication, can contribute to achieving restorative justice and establishing a reasonable balance between patient rights and the professional status of physicians within the Iranian legal system. Keywords: Liability, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Physician, Treatment . JEL Classification: Jurisprudence - Law - Criminal and Criminology - International Law - Private Law Scientific Journal of Modern Jurisprudence and Law Print ISSN: 2717- 1469 Online ISSN: 2717 - 1477 Profile in ISC,SID, Noormags, Magiran, Ensani, GoogleScholar www.jaml .ir Year 2026 وSixth year ,Issue 27 Pages 1-17 Abstract Third-party obligation is one of the important concepts in Iranian law, in which a person (obligor) undertakes an obligation for the benefit of a third party (other than the parties to the contract). This type of obligation may be made for various reasons, such as the third party benefiting from the benefits of the contract or providing protection to the parties. However, the fulfillment of an obligation for the benefit of a third party faces certain obstacles and conditions that limit its enforceability. One of the most important obstacles is the lack of consent of the third party. If the third party refuses to accept or benefit from the obligation, the obligation for the benefit of a third party will not be effective. In other words, the third party must be willing to use the obligation for his own benefit, otherwise the obligation will be invalid. In addition, the consent of the obligee is also necessary, because otherwise the contract will be ineffective. Some specific laws may not allow the obligation for the benefit of a third party to be fulfilled in a desirable manner, especially if it conflicts with special regulations or the rights of others. In this regard, mandatory laws designed based on public order or good morals may declare such obligations illegal. Another obstacle is the presence of a specific condition in the contract that may create restrictions on the third party's exploitation of the obligation. The lack of competence of the third party is also anoth مسئولیت پزشک در عملیات جراحی و درمان، از حساس ترین جلوه های مسئولیت حرفهای در حقوق معاصر است؛ زیرا مستقیما با حق بنیادین انسان بر حیات، سالمت جسمی و کرامت انسانی پیوند دارد. عمل جراحی، بهعنوان مداخله ای آگاهانه اما پرخطر در بدن انسان، همواره این پرسش اس اسی را پیش رو ی حقوق قرار میدهد که در صورت بروز زیان، حدود مسئولیت پزشک تا کجاست و چگونه میتوان م یان ضرورت حمایت از بیمار و حفظ امنیت شغلی و علمی پزشک تعادل برقرار کرد. این مقاله با تمرکز بر این چالش، به تبیین ماهیت و مبانی مسئولیت پزشک در جراحی و درمان می پردازد. پژوهش حاضر با بهره گیری از روش تحلیلی ـ تطبیقی، مسئولیت پزشک را در سه نظام حقوقی ایران، مصر و ترکیه مورد بررسی قرار میدهد. در حقوق ایران، مسئولیت پزشک عمدتا بر مبنا ی تقصیر و در چارچوب تعهد به وسیله تحلیل میشود و احراز خطای پزشکی، رابطه سببیت و ورود ضرر نقش تعیینکننده دارد. در حقوق مصر، افزون بر تقصیر، عنصر »عمل نامشروع« جای گاهی مستقل در تحلیل مسئولیت ایفا می کند و دامنه حمایت از بیمار را گسترش می دهد. در حقوق ترکیه نیز معیار مراقبت حرفه ای و انطباق رفتار پزشک با استانداردها ی علمی پذیرفتهشده، محور اصلی سنجش مسئولیت در اعمال جراحی است. یافتههای این مطالعه نشان میدهد که هرچند مبنای مشترک مسئولیت پزشک در هر سه نظام، اصل تقصیر است، اما تفاوت در جایگاه رضایت آگاهانه، شی وه اثبات خطا و آثار حقوقی مسئولیت، روی کردهای متفاوتی را رقم زده است. تحلیل تطبیقی بیانگر آن است که تقویت نگاه انسانی به حق وق بیمار، همراه با شفاف ساز ی معیارها ی حرفه ای پزشکی و توسعه سازوکارهای تخصصی رسیدگی، می تواند به تحقق عدالت ترمیمی و ایجاد توازن معقول میان حقوق بیمار و جایگاه حرفهای پزشک در حقوق ایران منجر شود

https://www.jaml.ir/article_735383_029d7c6b3ab1317769eeef09d0ff17df.pdf