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.

Minority children - those under the age of 18 belonging to ethnic, religious, linguistic or national minorities - face distinctive vulnerabilities in the global human rights landscape. While all children require heightened protection due to their dependence on others for survival and development, minority children frequently endure discrimination shaped by overlapping identities such as disability, gender or migration background. These intersecting disadvantages restrict their access to education, healthcare and protection, perpetuating cycles of exclusion. This paper critically examines how intersectional and multiple discrimination affect minority children and demonstrates that existing legal frameworks, despite broad guarantees of equality, insufficiently address these compounded harms. By drawing on intersectionality theory and international human rights law - particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - the study highlights significant protection gaps and their real-world consequences. The significance of this research lies in bridging a critical gap between abstract legal commitments and the lived realities of minority children. It underscores the urgent need for data-driven, inclusive and intersectionally- informed policies that recognize the full complexity of children’s identities. By offering concrete recommendations for policymakers, international organizations and civil society, this paper advances a more effective child rights agenda—one that moves beyond formal equality to ensure substantive justice and dignity for all children.

The rapid advancements in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) introduce novel ethical and jurisprudential dilemmas distinct from traditional adoption practices, particularly concerning marital law. This study aims to address the core research question: What is the comparative legal ruling, based on Islamic jurisprudence and civil law, on the permissibility of marriage between children conceived via ART and gamete owners, in contrast to adopted children and their legal guardians? The central hypothesis posits that the presence of a direct genetic link in ART cases fundamentally prohibits marriage (akin to consanguinity), whereas the absence of such a link in adoption necessitates only legal ratification based on child welfare, despite psychological concerns. The research utilizes a doctrinal-comparative analytical framework to examine classifications based on gamete origin (own, donated or surrogacy) and contrasts these findings with the lineage and marriage barriers inherent in adoption. This research adopts an applied, theoretical approach situated within the field of Theology and comparative Family Law; thus, no empirical data collection was undertaken. The primary methodology employed was doctrinal and comparative analysis. The doctrinal method was utilized to systematically categorize and evaluate the permissibility of marriage concerning ART-conceived children based on the established Islamic legal principles governing lineage and gamete ownership across the four identified scenarios (own gametes, sperm donation, oocyte donation and surrogacy). This was further strengthened by a comparative legal framework, juxtaposing the findings derived from the genetic connections in ART with the established legal and welfare considerations governing adoption. This dual-framework approach ensures methodological validity by grounding conclusions in both deep jurisprudential exploration and cross-legal comparison. Results confirm that genetic attribution in ART mandates prohibition of marriage for all related parties, including surrogate mothers. Conversely, while adoption has no biological barrier to marriage, legal and psychological advisability remains the primary regulatory concern. This paper concludes that although genetic linkage, not mere custodial relationship, is the defining criterion for prohibiting marriage under current jurisprudential and legal norms but, legal frameworks in many jurisdictions, including Iran, require specific permissions from religious authorities and courts, prioritizing the child’s welfare. Despite the legal possibility, there is a significant consensus among psychologists and legal experts that marriage between an adopted child and their guardian is inadvisable and potentially harmful.

Armed conflicts disrupt essential services, worsen poverty and pose a significant threat to children's food security. Malnutrition among children during wartime can lead to long-term health and developmental issues. This study examines the vital role of governments in ensuring food access for children during conflicts, highlighting effective policies, interventions and challenges in mitigating hunger. A thematic synthesis was conducted to qualitatively analyze government-led initiatives aimed at ensuring sustainable food security for children. The review focused on policy frameworks, emergency food aid programs and international collaborations across three specific conflict-affected regions: South Sudan, Nigeria and Yemen. These regions were selected due to their prolonged humanitarian crises and diverse policy responses. Case studies from each region were examined to identify recurring themes, assess the effectiveness of interventions and highlight both successes and limitations in governmental approaches. Governments are crucial in tackling wartime food insecurity through emergency relief programs, school feeding schemes and partnerships with humanitarian organizations. However, logistical challenges, resource shortages and political instability often impede their effectiveness. Strategies such as decentralizing food distribution, mobilizing local food resources and integrating food security measures into post-conflict recovery plans have demonstrated promise in improving outcomes. Ensuring food security for children during wartime requires proactive government policies, efficient resource allocation and strengthened international cooperation. While short-term relief efforts are essential, long-term strategies aimed at building resilience and infrastructure are necessary to protect children's nutrition in crisis situations. Strengthening governance mechanisms and fostering collaboration between agencies can enhance the effectiveness of food security interventions during conflicts.

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.

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.

While fetal rights are gaining momentum in global health, ethics and legal discourses, they are still below par in socioeconomic policy frameworks. Access to prenatal services and family decision-making in Iran faces increased challenges due to both current international economic sanctions and recently introduced pronatalist population policies that have intersected with long-standing structural economic hardships. This study investigates the challenges concerning fetal rights in the context of Iranian families' economic difficulties. The focused qualitative analysis was derived from the broader mixed-methods research titled “Policy Analysis for Developing a Charter of Fetal Rights in Iran”. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 25 participants (5 parents, 6 healthcare providers, 4 legal experts, 4 religious scholars and 6 policy specialists). Key informants such as legal experts, theologians and policymakers were recruited using purposive sampling to ensure diversity of professional perspectives, while snowball sampling was applied primarily for parents due to accessibility challenges. Recruitment continued until data saturation was reached. Data analysis was performed using the conventional content analysis method by Zhang and Wildemuth in eight stages, supported by the MAXQDA software (version 2020). Content analysis revealed that the central theme was “Fetal Rights in the Context of Economic Hardship”, which encompassed four interrelated subcategories: 1. Financial barriers to accessing specialized prenatal screening services under limited insurance coverage; 2. Occupational insecurity and informal employment conditions during pregnancy; 3. Anticipatory economic anxiety regarding long-term childrearing expenses under unstable economic conditions; 4. Insufficient institutional welfare mechanisms and fragmented family-based support systems. The factors of economic vulnerability were found to be one of the structural determinants affecting maternal well-being and fetal health outcomes. Economic hardship and insufficient structural support indirectly affect maternal physical and mental health, thereby constraining the realization of fetal rights. Economic safety nets should therefore be incorporated into maternal and fetal health policies, including expanded insurance coverage for prenatal diagnostic services and targeted financial and nutritional programs for economically disadvantaged pregnant women.

Moral distress and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) due to the moral challenges of dealing with COVID-19 can reduce the quality of nursing care. In such situations, nurses require moral courage to demonstrate proper moral performance. This study aimed to compare the levels of anxiety, distress and moral courage of nurses working in COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 wards. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Zanjan University of Medical Sciences (Ethical code No.IR.ZUMS.REC.1399.171). This comparative cross-sectional study was conducted on 107 nurses working in COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 wards in the teaching hospitals of Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Iran, in 2020. Nurses were selected by convenience sampling method. Data were collected using demographic, Professional Moral Courage (PMC) scale, Iranian Moral Distress Scale (IMDS) and GAD scale and analyzed using independent t-tests, Chi-square, Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests with p-value<0.05 in SPSS 16 software. Comparing the mean scores of generalized anxiety between nurses caring for COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 patients, a statistically significant difference was found (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the mean score of moral distress severity between nurses caring for COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 patients (p>0.05). Similarly, no significant difference was found in the mean score of moral courage between the two groups caring for COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 patients (p>0.05). The results showed that the level of generalized anxiety disorder in nurses of Non-COVID-19 wards is higher than COVID-19. This finding emphasized the distinct psychological impact of caring for patients with COVID-19. However, the level of moral courage and moral distress in the two groups of nurses did not differ significantly. These results imply that while the challenges related to generalized anxiety are more evident in the context of COVID-19 care, nurses in both patient groups face comparable levels of moral distress and exhibit similar levels of moral courage. Recognizing these nuanced aspects of nurses' well-being and resilience is essential for crafting focused support strategies and interventions in healthcare settings.

 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.