Jurisprudential thematic of palliative care in terminally ill patients

 The Subject is the base and cause of jurisprudential decisions; therefore its accurate knowing is one of the main jurists’ concern. "Palliative care" is a new approach in medical care to improve the quality of life for terminally ill patients. Accurately stating the subject of palliative care and its conflict or lack of conflict with jurisprudential rules is one of the necessities of dynamic jurisprudence. This article discusses the palliative care issue from the Imamieh jurisprudential view to help jurists in making decision and issuing orders.

 This research is based on library method and descriptive-analytical approach. First, various palliative care activities were recited from reliable digital sources and then its difference with euthanasia discussed by describing the desired objectives. In jurisprudential understanding issue of palliative care, the decision-making authority was mentioned in terms of "self-sovereignty" rule. Then the subject of palliative care has been analyzed in relation to the jurisprudential rules of "self-preservation ", "no harm" and "relieving hardship and embarrassment". Also the priority or non-priority of choosing palliative care over life-prolonging care has been investigated by comparing them in terms of compliance with jurisprudence.

 Palliative care does not conflict with any of jurisprudential rules. The main intention in euthanasia is to hasten death, which is an act against self-preservation. But in palliative care, this intention is excluded. According to the rule of the sovereignty of the soul, the decision-making authority for palliative care is the patient. Life-prolonging care is more compatible with the rule of "obligation of self-preservation" and palliative care with the rules of "no harm" and "relieving hardship and embarrassment" and the patient can choose the type of care based on the importance of life expectancy or quality of life.