In Imamia (shia) jurisprudence, following the view of majority of jurists, when a physician takes the patients consent for the treatment, and injures him, during it, he will be responsible, although he is not at fault, unless he has taken "Bera’at"befor the medical operation. this idea is too well – known that has been the origin of article 319 and322 of the Islamic punishment code. In this essay, the avidences of that opinion, is critically studied, and it is demonstrated that: Non - fault responsibility of the physician and the necessity of taking "Bera’at"is not proven .Believing in the necessity of taking ,"Bera’at", one can decide that the meaning of "Bera’at"in Fiqh is "consent" in modern legal system, not "the non responsibility clause".
Kazemi, M. (2010). A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE FAMOUS IDEA (MASHHUR) OF IMAMIA (SHIA) JURISTS, ABOUT CIVIL RESPONSILBILITY OF PHYSICIAN. Law Quarterly, 40(4), 287-309.
MLA
Mahmoud Kazemi. "A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE FAMOUS IDEA (MASHHUR) OF IMAMIA (SHIA) JURISTS, ABOUT CIVIL RESPONSILBILITY OF PHYSICIAN". Law Quarterly, 40, 4, 2010, 287-309.
HARVARD
Kazemi, M. (2010). 'A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE FAMOUS IDEA (MASHHUR) OF IMAMIA (SHIA) JURISTS, ABOUT CIVIL RESPONSILBILITY OF PHYSICIAN', Law Quarterly, 40(4), pp. 287-309.
VANCOUVER
Kazemi, M. A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE FAMOUS IDEA (MASHHUR) OF IMAMIA (SHIA) JURISTS, ABOUT CIVIL RESPONSILBILITY OF PHYSICIAN. Law Quarterly, 2010; 40(4): 287-309.
)