نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله English
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
کلیدواژهها English