فصلنامه حقوق پزشکی
پیاپی 36 (بهار 1395)

The right to found a family is one of the fundamental rights of every man and woman which has been recognized by international and regional human rights law, and the states have positive and negative obligations to realize it. It has been suggested that it may be considered discriminatory to impose parenting criteria for having a child via an ART procedure and it is an arbitrary interference with the right of every one to found a family.
This paper examines the eligibility for access to the ARTs in some aspects, and in the light of the human rights principles, such as freedom, non-discrimination and the best interest of the child. It seems that in balancing the rights of applicants with the future baby, the best interest of the child shall be the paramount consideration, meanwhile the main reason for applying this technology shall be considered to prevent the dehumanization of it.

One of the achievements of medical science in the field of infertility among couples is frozen embryo so that sperm and egg of couples is frozen to be able to use if necessary. According to the laws and the rights of frozen embryos, the question that needs to be addressed is whether frozen embryos consider as a property or as a person.
This is a retrospective study based on extensive literature survey, translated articles, theses and benefiting from the experiences of other countries.
Findings: There are three theories about frozen embryos. A group considers it as a merely property which have a value as an object. Another group believes that frozen embryos have an independent personality including all the rights and duties of the perfect man. The third group believes that the frozen embryo has a certain respect that should be supported.
among the presented opinions, the one which is an interstitial comment has more fans. According to the potential life of frozen embryos in case of death of one spouse, frozen embryos cannot be used as one of the heirs. Moreover, frozen embryos of separated couple are related to the content of the contract with clinic that what their decision are about frozen embryos.

Using another woman's uterus for childbearing of infertile couples is carried out with their sperm and eggs which are transferred to another woman’s uterus. This method of therapy involves a contract which is led series of rights and obligations for both parties. Rights of contract parties are dividable to financial and non-financial rights. This study is aimed at non-financial rights of surrogate mother. She, in nowadays’ Iranian legal custom, does not have any right to visit the baby and any right of breastfeeding. Opting kind of delivery is another disputable right for surrogate mother which is usually ignored. Moreover, legal experts have not a single view point about surrogate mother’s right to abort or to refuse abortion. These matters are more focused in this study.

The rejection or rebuff of transplanted organs refers to the case in which the immune system of the recipient's body repels the transplanted organ. The prevention and reduction of such repulsions are the main concern of transplant surgeons and recipients. Liabilities associated with repulsion and its side-effects have a contractual nature; also, unlike other surgery-related liabilities, here there are two contracts, namely, ‘Organ Donation Contract between the Donor and Recipient’ and ‘Treatment Contract’. If rejection is due to the malfunction of the donated organ, of which the donor was aware, it is ascribed to the ill-will of the donor, and he is held liable for the side-effects as stated in the terms of ‘The Implied Flawlessness of the Transplanted Organ’. As for ‘Treatment Contract’, liability associated with organ rejection follows the general principles legislated in ‘The New Laws of Islamic Penalization,’ passed in 2013. It implies that the surgeon and factors causing rejection are held liable and are required to make amends for any adverse consequences. Usually, according to Beneficence Rule, the donor and the heirs of a recipient who is brain-dead are immune from liability or responsibilities regarding the side-effects of transplantation. Also, no liability is considered for a recipient who is proved to be the reason for organ rejection. The annulment of the main purpose of transplantation and ensuing disputes and law cases deserves a thorough analysis. The researchers intend to conduct a survey about the abovementioned issues in the Contemporary Iranian Medical Laws.

Cosmetic surgery as a serious challenge in the society caused various legal problems; accordingly analyzing legal articles related to criminal liability of physician for determining and formulating crimes and punishing commission of crime and influencing on these actions shall be taken into consideration. These crimes include intentional and unintentional crimes. The intentional crimes have incidence ground in these surgeries exercising based on their features; many items such as mislead advertising, disclosing patient's secretes and breach of privacy in which pursuant to the law; these actions shall be punished. But the most important countenance of crimes in field of exercising cosmetic surgery is unintentional crimes resulting from medical failure that by searching in clause C, article 158 and article 495 of New Islamic Punishment Law and considering cosmetic surgerie's qualifications, mainly with feloniously titles for non-fulfilling proportion rules, breach of treatment strengthen obligation, failure on obtaining awareness consent and lack of scientific eligibility and sufficient experiences for doing surgery can be introduced. Although in punishment law, the entire countenance of crimes shall be indemnify by galanas performance guarantee; but according to article 616 of discretionary punishment law and article 68 of new law; it can jail culprit physician or substitute decree to cash fine. Additionally professional punishments will be applied for culprit physicians.

The registration of trademarks related to pharmaceutical trademarks in the European :union: in comparison with other trademarks requires more complicated and longer procedure. Respecting health hazards posed by medicine errors, determination of an appropriate legal framework is of particular importance. This article addresses such difficulties and complicity, and reviews and analyses the case-law approach to those challenges.
◦The method used in this Article is descriptive-analytical. Data have been compiled by bibliotheca methods through taking notes from relevant sources. The collected data have been analyzed in light of regulations and courts decisions.
◾On the one hand, in addition to normal application-based procedure required at trademark offices, pharmaceutical trademarks must be examined and approved prior to utilization by health-related authorities because of their impact on public health. On the other hand, the length of this approval process could put the validity of many registered pharmaceutical trademarks at risk in light of genuine use requirement, because such trademarks cannot be used in the market before obtaining the public-health-related authorization. Moreover, the particular criteria governing the assessment of the likelihood of confusion add more complicity to the difficulties with the registration of pharmaceutical trademarks. When deciding on a proposed trademark and a prior mark, the difference between the consumers’ knowledge that includes not only medicine and medical staff, but also patients poses challenges on how to evaluate the risk of confusion between those marks.
◾When assessing a likelihood of confusion, healthcare professionals and end-users should be considered. Also, in assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, factors such as their nature, their end users intended purpose and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary should be taken into account.

Although diagnostics methods in Article 4 of the patents, industrial designs and trademark act are excluded from patent protection, but about the nature and limits of the exception in our legal system has not raised much debate. The nature of the exception requires an understanding of the reasons of exception and regardless of these reasons we cannot reach a proper understanding of the nature and limits of diagnostic methods. Many reasons for excluding diagnostic methods from the scope of patentable invention are mentioned and the right to health are one of the most important of these reasons. In this paper, we firstly examine the human rights challenges of diagnostic methods patentability, and then interpret the nature of diagnostic methods in the light of the right to health. On this base we will examine the European Patent Office interpretations for these methods. By taking advantage of this base, we examine subjects, such as the role of medical intervention and practicing the methods on the human body in the coverage of this exclusion from patent protection.

Intellectual property plays an increasingly vital role in global trade and economic development. Globalization of intellectual property rights means that intangible informational resources are now produced, exchanged and consumed anywhere and everywhere defying jurisdictional borders. Intellectual property has moved into the mainstream of national economic and developmental planning. In the recent years, it has also emerged as a central element of multilateral trade relations.
It is probably more accurate to portray intellectual property rights as a class of intangible business asset that is usually held by global companies such as pharmaceutical companies performing the (admittedly important) roles in the modern economy of investors, employers, distributors and marketers.
Findings: By globalization of intellectual property law, Individual pharmacologists are less frequently the ones who own and control the rights.
Viewed in isolation, globalization of intellectual property law is a stunning triumph of the pharmaceutical companies in making global IP rules and in enlisting states and international organizations to enforce them. However, one must be careful not to generalize from one case.