|
... the science of peace |
|
|
Q: is it permissible for a doctor (in medicine) to disclose his
patient’s secrets? A: If patients
entrust the doctor with their secrets, such secrets must be kept the
same way a trust of money is kept, perhaps keeping a secret is more
important than keeping money because the former leads to enormous
negative consequences on the part of the trustee. Moreover, in some
traditions, it is reported that the privacy of a meeting must not be
encroached, and no one is authorized to disclose a secret hidden by
his fellow human being unless it is for his own good; We can even say
that if a patient tells his secrets to his doctor due to health needs,
provided that the doctor doesn’t disclose such secrets to anybody
else, then the doctor is not allowed to reveal such secrets,
especially if a defect, whether physical or moral, is included.
Otherwise, this will be considered backbiting, which means uncovering
your brother’s hidden defects.
Q: Is it permissible for a woman to consult a male gynecologist who is
more experienced and knowledgeable than other available female
gynecologists? A: If both the male
and the female gynecologists are equally qualified concerning medical
and scientific abilities and methods of treatment, then a woman is not
allowed to uncover her body to a male doctor, but if the male doctor
is more lenient and experienced in treatment than other female doctor
due to his advanced medical equipments or his lenient style of
treating women- especially if the woman fears health damage if
examined by a female doctor- then this woman is allowed to consult a
male doctor even in the presence of female doctors. This has been
stated by a tradition concerning this issue, which authorizes women to
be examined by a male doctor if he is more lenient and experienced in
treatment. This has also been highlighted by Imam Muhammad al
Baqir(a.s.) as reported by Abu Hamza Al Thamali, who said: I asked the
Imam whether a male doctor, who is more lenient in treating women than
female doctors, can examine the body of a Moslem woman which is
afflicted with defects, such as fractures and injuries in parts which
are taboos. The Imam (a.s.) said: only if a male doctor is a
necessity. The Second Martyr quoted this report and other reports to
deduce that in treatment the rational sick people seek the most
lenient and the most experienced to avoid harm, thus it is allowed in
this case only.
Q: What legal limitations and restraints should gynecologists abide
by? A: Any physician or
gynecologist is not allowed to look at the private parts of a woman’s
body unless urgent treatment is necessitated. What is legally shown of
the woman’s body is what could be revealed to both ordinary men and
physicians… for, in general, a man is not allowed to look at the body
of a woman except for urgent treatment. On the other hand, any
ordinary person and any physician can view a woman’s body in case of
emergency, such as drowning or fire.
Q: Upon delivery, is it permissible for a woman to resort to a male
obstetrician in the presence of a midwife? What if the male
obstetrician only controls the operation live through a television
screen? A: Delivery is
similar to any treatment, so if a woman can give birth with the
assistance of a specialized midwife fearing no potential damage or
disconcertion, then this woman is not allowed to resort to a male
obstetrician to avoid the exposure. But this is permissible only in
emergency cases when the supervision of an obstetrician is a must to
assist the midwife upon delivery.
Q: Is the doctor’s diagnosis of a patient’s case regarding fasting and
other duties binding? What if the patient doubts the doctor’s belief
and religious commitment? A: We can rely on
the diagnosis of an experienced and trustworthy doctors to determine
whether harm is potential or not. But if a doctor in not trustworthy,
a patient can decide whether to break his fast or not depending on the
degree of his fear of harm: if the doctor’s warnings cause great fear
of harm, then the patient must break his fast, because breaking one’s
fast is determined by the fear of potential harm, not by the actual
harm. On the other hand,
if the doctor’s warnings don’t lead to great fear of harm on the part
of the patient, then he isn’t allowed to break his fast, on the basis
of the above-mentioned rule.
Q: Is a doctor allowed to prescribe a medicine containing harmful
elements to presumably relieve his patient’s pain? A: This is
permissible if the patient’s pain is so unbearable that pain relief
has become a priority if compared to the expected harm of the
medicine… But if the mentioned medicine causes the patient’s body to
be afflicted with great damage or deformity, which might expose the
patient’s life to danger, then it is impermissible...
Q: In some surgeries like loop setting, which are still controversial
among jurists, should the doctor abide by the Jurist whom he follows
or by the Jurist followed by his patient? A: Naturally, the
doctor is to follow the jurist whom he follows, because what is he
going to do is a part of his job for which he is responsible. For
instance, if a woman-who follows those who permit women to look at the
private parts of one another -resorts to a female doctor who follows
those who forbid such an act, then the female doctor is allowed to
treat this woman only in emergency cases. But if the female doctor
follows a jurist whose Fatwas or opinions didn’t discuss such a
matter, than the doctor is permitted to treat the woman.
Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)
Q: By whom is Mercy killing determined: the doctor, the religious
authority or the patient himself? A: If “ mercy
killing” means relieving a patient’s unbearable pain, then it’s
impermissible, because putting an end to man’s life is illegal even if
it is based on pity and sympathy. And if mercy killing
means putting an end to a patient’s life to comfort his parents on the
basis that he is going to die in the coming few days, then it’s also
impermissible because we are not authorized to rob him of his life
even if one hour of survival is possible. On the other hand,
if mercy killing means brain death, when the patient is considered
medically dead and when the possibility of the brain’s re-functioning
is less than one percent, then we can say that it is not a must to use
the apparatus that elongates the body’s life represented by the heart
movement. So, it’s lawful to remove this device should the concerned
doctor so decide. It’s also the duty of the parents to authorize the
doctor to carry out the operation, for the doctor is not authorized to
put an end to this man’s life since the patient has a guardian, whom
the doctor should refer to. This is based on the belief that the
obligation of saving a patient’s life doesn’t include the life of
cells, but the life of the human being. This type of life, that of the
cells, can be compared to a similar type of life in a snake tail after
the snake is killed
Q: In the two cases mentioned above, is it permissible for the patient
to put an end to his life by asking the doctor to kill him? A: The patient is
not allowed to do so, because he is not authorized to put an end to
his life.
Q: What is your judgment concerning the dissection of a dead body
whether for educational reasons or for the diagnosis of death causes? A: In principle, it
is not permissible to dissect the dead body of a Moslem because the
sanctity of the dead believer is by no means inferior to the living
one. Also God (praise be to Him) forbids any harm to the believer
whether dead or alive –as mentioned in many traditions. The Islamic
law has imposed indemnity for cutting a dead body’s head, hand, etc…
But if learning in largely dependent on dissecting a dead Moslem’s
body, then it will be permissible. For example, postmortem examination
that leads to saving or treating many people, or to confirming the
right of the dead or to knowing whether his death was not natural then
it is legal because it represents a vital interest that surpasses the
sanctity of the dead body. This is based on preferring the more
important interest to a lesser one.
Q: It’s noticed that the majority of opinions that tend to forbid
dissection refer to traditions that disallow mutilation-even to the
mordacious dog. It’s also obvious that there is a great difference
between the current method of dissection and the idea of mutilation
what is your judgment? A: Some jurists
believe that mutilation occurs when a corpse is dismembered,
regardless of the intentions, good or bad, whereas others believe that
mutilation is a connotation of torture, revenge or punishment, and I
tend to adopt this opinion, thus, I believe that dissection for
justified purposes is not considered mutilation.
Q: What is your Eminence’s judgment concerning the donation of body
organs after death? A: legally speaking,
one has the right to donate his organs after death, because forbidding
such an act is based on respecting him and his organs, so this is
legal if he abandons this right after death through a will, especially
if these organs save the lives of others or enable them to be more
effective and active. In this respect, organ donation is characterized
by charity and benevolence, which are highly commanded, as in Allah’s
say {And they prefer (them) before themselves
though poverty may afflict them}[59:09] Through this verse, we
derive the legitimacy of preference although it talks about money,
since it establishes the principle of preference.
Q: If a person’s life is urgently dependent on an organ from a dead
body, what is the legal judgment? A: It’s not only
permissible but it is a must even if it is not mentioned in the will,
because preserving a Moslem’s life is more important than observing
the sanctity of a dead body.
Q: Is it permissible for a female nurse assigned to take care of a
male patient to touch him or to see his private part? A: This is
impermissible in origin unless his treatment is largely dependent on
that, and unless she is the only person present to carry out this
task.
Q: What is the legal rule concerning abortion? What about the
operating doctor? A: Abortion is
illegal once the spermatozoon impregnates the ovum and once life is
infused in the woman’s womb... Thus, this is legal only in special
cases as when the fetus endangers the mother’s life, then, the mother
is allowed to defend herself even if the source of danger is not aware
of what he is doing, like in the case of a mad man or the like.
Q: Is it rewarding to donate blood to non-Muslims? A: it’s said that
it is rewarding to answer any call for help, so saving others’ lives,
including non-Muslims is commended by God. In addition, such an act
helps spread Islam and confirms the morality of the Muslim, who does
others favors, no matter to what religion they belong.
Q: As a doctor, can I hide a patient’s medical information or
diagnosis to avoid psychological harm? Am I allowed to give him a
false hope to boost his morale? A: It is not
permissible to tell a patient about his illness if it speeds up his
death unless not informing him leads to great disadvantage, before
which he must take care of some important errands that would lead to
great harm if they were not accomplished. On the other hand,
giving him a false hope in an indirect way to heighten his spirits is
highly rewarding.
Q: What is your comment on the hymen repair surgery, for woman who
lost her virginity, in accident or by a mistake, to deceive her
husband and to escape from grave social persecution? A: This is
permissible, if the loss virginity leads her to suffer unbearable
disgrace, disrepute or death. But, this should be done with great care
and reservation and only in critical situations, for encouraging this
kind of operations may lead a lot of woman to sexually deviate and
find it easy to indulge in relationships, even the legal ones as in
“temporary marriages”, which might result in some moral corruption or
social problems. As far as deception
is concerned, if a husband finds out that his wife’s virginity is
restored, then he has the right to accuse his wife of deception. Thus it’s
recommended that the husband be told about loss virginity before
marriage, so that matrimonial life will be based on mutual trust,
which stabilizes marriage foundations.
Q: Is it permissible for a woman to have abortion if her pregnancy is
the outcome of a secret marriage or an illegal sexual relation in
order to escape from danger or grave social persecution? A: This is
permissible if her conception endangers her life or often leads to
unbearable disgrace and disconcertion, provided that the embryo has
not reached the stage that could be called alive; otherwise, abortion
is illicit unless it is necessitated by tangible danger to a woman
life.
Q: If a mother’s survival depends on her fetus’s demise or vise versa,
whose life is given priority? Is the decision determined by the
mother, the husband, the doctor, or the religious authority? A: The mother has
the right to make the decision and to defend her self by abortion. No
body else, whether a doctor, the baby’s or the mother’s guardian, can
interfere to solve the problem, but the religious authority can
interfere only to ratify the legitimacy of the mother’s decision.
However, the doctor is allowed to perform abortion only if the woman’s
life is dependent on this operation, without which her life will be in
a real danger. It’s worth mentioning that maximum reservation should
be considered in such cases. * Taken from: www.bayynat.org
| with Christians and Jews |