نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
گروه فقه، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
The rapid advancement of novel biotechnologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology, has enabled targeted interventions in the human genetic structure, opening new horizons for the prevention and treatment of hereditary diseases. However, the complex, multifactorial, and scientifically uncertain nature of these technologies raises the possibility of harms that may manifest after a temporal delay or even emerge in subsequent generations. Such characteristics fundamentally challenge the traditional model of civil liability, which relies on establishing fault and a direct causal relationship, thereby highlighting the necessity for re-examining the jurisprudential foundations of ḍamān (legal liability/compensation) within Islamic law.
Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and an ijtihādic (interpretive-jurisprudential) approach, this study investigates the capacity of Imamiyyah jurisprudence to address liability arising from genetic interventions. The findings indicate that jurisprudential principles such as lā ḍarar (the prohibition of harm), tasbīb (causation), gharar (excessive uncertainty), and the principle of precaution in matters pertaining to life and progeny possess the conceptual flexibility to be reinterpreted and expanded in response to emerging biotechnologies. Nevertheless, the application of these principles necessitates the reconceptualization of key notions—including customary standards of evidence (asnād ʿurfī), causal relationships, and the scope of informed consent—in light of specialized genetic risk assessments.
This research contributes to the formulation of a jurisprudential framework for risk-based liability in genetic interventions through the ijtihādic development of the theory of tasbīb as applied to complex scientific acts and the analysis of intergenerational responsibility. The study's results demonstrate that, in the domain of gene editing, the criterion for attributing ḍamān may be grounded in the creation of a specific type of risk and the violation of scientific precautionary obligations. Furthermore, patient consent—due to the inherently unpredictable nature of genetic interventions and their effects extending beyond the consenting individual—cannot absolutely preclude liability.
کلیدواژهها [English]