Bioethics and Health Law Journal (BHL)

Islam establishes strict moral rules for warfare, emphasizing the sanctity of civilians, the prohibition of environmental destruction and the provision of essential needs such as food, water and medicine to populations affected by war. These principles overlap
significantly with the rules of international humanitarian law on the protection of civilians and access to humanitarian assistance. The ongoing crisis in the Gaza Strip, under Israeli military operations, is a clear example of the gross failure of these features. The prolonged siege, coupled with severe restrictions on the entry of vital aid, along with the destruction of essential infrastructure, has led to a profound humanitarian crisis that has severely limited access to the bare necessities of life for civilians. The evidence of widespread destruction, forced displacement of the population and disproportionate civilian casualties, coupled with the lack of access to essential food and medicine, especially for children, adolescents and pregnant and lactating mothers, confirms the commission of war crimes and genocide. The killing of 60,000 civilians, the deaths of dozens due to starvation and the killing of a large number of people in food queues are all examples of this genocide. This situation highlights a deep gap between the theoretical commitment to the ethics of war in Islam and international law and the reality of the battlefield in Gaza and requires urgent examination from a legal and ethical perspective. This study examines the ethical norms and counter-norms of war from an Islamic perspective.

The rapid and dire spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound consequences for the various aspects of the human life worldwide and has distorted the coherence and rationality of governments' behavior in the face of the crisis. Similar to the severe restriction of human rights under the pretext of securing political and human security following the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the pandemic of the new disease has been used as an excuse by some governments to ride on the wave of fear pumping into society under public scrutiny; to suppress social movements; to cover up the health system's monitoring of the disease, to gather a wide range of people's private information; to take advantage of the media's focus on the news of this pandemic and the turmoil of the public mind, to refrain from fair trial and restorative justice into the old retributive punishments, not honoring the victim and violating the human rights of the offender and increasing judicial and security powers by relying on “zero tolerance” and “law and order” crime control strategies. This article, using discourse analysis method along with case studies, analyzes two inappropriate strategies-securityism and populism- in the criminal policy of some governments since the emergence of the pandemic in four levels: Factors, effects, consequences and strategies to eliminate.

The right to mental health is a fundamental component of the right to health and a core aspect of children’s rights. Among the factors influencing the realization or violation of this right, cyberspace plays a significant role, as children increasingly spend substantial time in digital environments that are often inappropriate for their age and mental development and may negatively affect their psychological well-being. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study examines how children’s right to mental health can be realized in cyberspace in light of international human rights instruments. It analyzes key related rights in the digital context, including the rights to education, privacy, security, and play, and their connection to children’s mental health. The findings indicate that international human rights law, particularly in the field of children’s rights, provides comprehensive measures and obligations for States to protect children in the digital environment. Special attention is given to General Comment No. 25 (2021) of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which clarifies States’ duties under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols in addressing the opportunities, risks, and challenges of the digital sphere, thereby affirming that children’s rights must be protected both offline and online.

After the spread of coronavirus in Iran, the medical staff undertook a relentless fight against COVID-19. Unfortunately, many of the nurses and physicians exposed to the virus at ICUs have caught the disease and some of them have passed away. This brings up the questions of whether the medical staff members have any commitment to staying at work by virtue of their job contracts, how responsible they are legally in this regard and whether they can avoid the potential risks by quitting their job duties based on the rule of necessity. These issues are explored in this study through a descriptive analytical method. As the results of the study suggest, a law in the Islamic Penal Code issued in 2013 rules out the application of the rule of necessity to medical practices at COVID-19 ICUs. However, due to the unpredictability of the disease at the time of signing the contacts and thus, the lack of legal commitment to working in the current pandemic conditions, medical practitioners cannot be compelled to go on with their duties in high-risk wards. Though ethically obliged to offer services to COVID patients, they do not have to do it in legal terms; those at work now were initially employed with no documented intention of dealing with patients in COVID ICUs or in other highly infected wards. In accordance with the laws on professions, when the existence of a job commitment is a matter of doubt, the commitment is assumed to be non-existent. Despite the legal stipulations, any service given to COVID patients should be praised as an act of generosity and sacrifice.

The concept of parallel digital realities offering experiences that mirror or transcend the limitations of the physical world has a long history, predating the internet itself. However, advancements in recent decades, such as near-ubiquitous mobile phone adoption and
high-speed internet proliferation, have brought the notion of a blended physical and digital reality closer to realization. The Metaverse refers to this convergence, facilitated by computing devices and immersive technologies like virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR). While this vision of a fully realized virtual world remains in its early stages, with its components still under development, the potential of the Metaverse to offer significant opportunities for humanity is clear. However, these opportunities are accompanied by ethical and legal challenges, prompting the critical question of who is responsible for regulating the Metaverse to ensure compliance with ethical and legal frameworks. Undoubtedly, the coming years will necessitate the development of some form of regulation and rule-making to govern human interactions within these digitally connected worlds.

Bood, a vital component of the human body, plays a critical role in preserving life. Modern medical advancements and the use of blood and its products in transfusions and saving human lives have brought the issue of buying and selling blood to the forefront as a contemporary concern. Islamic jurists have offered various perspectives in this regard. The aim of this research is to examine the jurisprudential (fiqhi) basis for the buying and selling of blood, considering its specialized applications in medical science and its role in saving human lives. This study also presents the views of contemporary jurists on this topic. This paper analyzes arguments regarding the ruling on blood buying and selling, examining the jurisprudential foundations of this issue. In this context, the evidence related to each viewpoint is carefully examined. A cognitive approach to analyzing the evidence, focusing on understanding the purposes of Sharia and the general principles governing jurisprudence, helps more accurately explain the jurisprudential basis of this subject. Examination of the evidence shows that the absolute prohibition of buying and selling blood is based on the consumption of blood and non-medical uses. In the present era, given the significant benefits of blood in medical applications and its role in saving human lives (except in specific cases, such as saving the lives of hostile non-believers), the buying and selling of blood is permissible, subject to certain conditions and stipulations. This permissibility is based on the principle of “prioritizing the greater good” and giving precedence to the preservation of human life over the initial prohibition of buying and selling blood. The prevalent benefits of blood in modern medicine, especially in saving human lives, outweigh the jurisprudential restrictions focused on non-medical consumption of blood. The permissibility of this practice is conditional on its use in medical contexts, which aligns with the overall Islamic principle of preserving life. It is worth noting that this permissibility requires adherence to more precise ethical and jurisprudential considerations, including ensuring equitable access to blood and preventing the exploitation of needy individuals. Furthermore, attention to the views of various jurists and efforts to find practical solutions that meet society's needs while respecting jurisprudential principles are essential.