Mehdi Jaliliyan; Ahmad Haji Dehabadi; Mohammad Ebrahim Shams Nateri; Mahdi Sheidaeian
Abstract
The response to the complicated issue of the scope of self-ownership has shed light on the issues like unnecessary cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment surgery, and organ transplant in the convicts of execution. From the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudential doctrines, there are a myriad of disagreements ...
Read More
The response to the complicated issue of the scope of self-ownership has shed light on the issues like unnecessary cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment surgery, and organ transplant in the convicts of execution. From the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudential doctrines, there are a myriad of disagreements over the subject of whether men are the owners of their organs or not. The resulted approach is that Islamic viewpoint, contrary to western ideologies which are humanistic, does not completely accept self-ownership. From the viewpoint of Islamic jurisprudence, freedom of men and their dominance on their body is an axiom but cannot expose them to unreasonable harm. From the standpoint of western legal theory, the proponents of self-ownership believe men are the owners of their organs and thus maintain that this law faces some limitations in the framework of natural law. Moreover, they hold that criminalization of unreasonable harm to self is not to be justified. In contrast, those who believe in the moral patriarchal theory object to self-ownership and justify the criminalization of such conducts. The present article analyzes the afore-mentioned standpoints through a descriptive method and then compares unreasonable cosmetic surgery in the criminal law of Iran with those of England andؤ
