Physician's responsibility if the patient refers to his prior permission

The phenomenon of medical malpractice, before being a medical subject, is a state that its conceptual identification and understanding is in the field of jurisprudential and legal studies. The present study has been developed by criticizing the physician's responsibility if the patient refers to his previous permission with the aim of changing the criteria and differentiating the physician's criminal and civil liability. Although the physician's liability has been dealt with in detail in jurisprudential sources, often with criminal scales, his liability or non-liability in case of patient referral from his former permission has remained silent.

The researcher has used a descriptive-analytical method to strengthen the physicians’ legal structure with a new depth in the second paragraph of Article 308 of the Civil Code with the focus on "pseudo-usurpation" or "judicial usurpation" and intends to explain not to refuse treatment by the doctor if the patient refers to his prior permission by reasoning human ownership on its members, proving iodine in seizure (treatment) of other property (patient’s body) and replacing civil liability based on compensation instead of criminal liability.

The study shows that physicians have invoked the reasons for preventing self-harm and the prohibition of induction of death, the rule of medicine and the moral responsibility of the physician for not referring the patient after the initial permission; On the other hand, patients by arguing for self-domination, corruption of permission in case of patient referral, believe in physician's positional responsibility. To resolve disputes between the patient and the physician if the patient refers to his prior permission, the legislature should choose one of two methods either extend the non-recourse of the necessary contract to an agreement between the physician and the patient, or make the government responsible for the physician's actions, assuming the patient returns to his prior permission, by arguing for the rule of necessity, fostering a compassionate and responsible medical community, rescuing the person at risk of death, and the rule “whoever benefits from something he is responsible for the damage”, of course, the second method is more efficient.