حق انتخاب میان درمان‌های نگه‌دارنده‌ی حیات و مراقبت‌های تسکینی از نگاه فقه شیعه

Patients with advanced, progressive, non-curable, or hardly cured illnesses, found themselves in a situation where therapeutic measures have no effect in improving their condition and health status and they are gradually pushed toward death. Care provided to the patient, during this period, is known as end-of-life care which include life-sustaining treatments and palliative care. Life- sustaining treatments are such that give patient the chance for living longer but inflict lots of suffering upon the patient. While in palliative care, the patient probably survives for a shorter period, but suffers less. The question is whether the patient can choose between the two methods? Considering the Jurisprudential rule of “the necessity to safeguard human life”, most of the Muslim Jurists believe that the patient cannot rule out the first method (i.e. life- sustaining treatment). This study first examines the evidence of the rule, and explained the viewpoints of the Muslim Jurists about choosing between these caring methods, and proves that, despite accepting the rule, it is limited by the rules of “no hardship“ (la haraj) and “prohibition of detriment”(la zarar) and moreover the rule of “the domination”(saltanat). However, it can be said that, regarding the evidence of rule “the necessity to safeguard human life”, patients who are at this stage are excluded from the subject matter of this rule.