akhlāq-i pizishkī i.e., Medical Ethics

Background and Aim: Academic dishonesty refers to any deliberate act intended to deceive in the presentation of academic assignments. The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between the dark triad of personality traits and moral intelligence with academic dishonesty among students of Lorestan University.

Methods: The research method is a descriptive-correlational survey method. The statistical population comprised all undergraduate students enrolled at Lorestan University during the 2024-25 academic year, of which 250 were selected as the research sample using proportional stratified sampling. Data were collected using questionnaires including dark triad personality traits (Jonason and Webster, 2010), moral intelligence (Lennick and Kiel, 2011) and academic dishonesty (McCabe and Trevino, 1997). Data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and multiple stepwise regression analysis in IBM SPSS Statistics 26.

Ethical Considerations: In the present study, ethical considerations such as voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality of information and participants' right to withdraw from the study without consequences were observed. The participants were free to respond to the questionnaires.

Results: The findings showed a positive, significant but weak relationship between the dark triad of personality traits and academic dishonesty (r=0.22, P<0/001) and a significant negative relationship between moral intelligence and dishonesty (r=-0.44, p<0.05). The results of regression analysis showed that the dark triad of personality traits and moral intelligence explained 41 percent of the variance in academic dishonesty.

Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, it can be concluded that dark triad personality traits and moral intelligence are associated with students' academic dishonesty. It is recommended that university counseling and mental health centers offer workshops to inform students about the role of the dark triad of personality traits and moral intelligence in academic dishonesty.

Background and Aim: Loss of chance in medical treatment is one of the most challenging issues at the intersection of medical ethics and professional liability, particularly in acute neurological diseases where time plays a decisive role in treatment outcomes. In such cases, medical negligence does not necessarily lead to death or permanent disability, but rather to a significant reduction in the chance of recovery or prevention of irreversible damage. This situation makes it difficult to establish a definitive causal relationship and leads to the denial of compensation in many legal systems. Therefore, examining how different legal systems address this issue may help explain the ethical and legal foundations of compensation for such damage. The aim of this study is to comparatively examine the ethical and legal dimensions of compensation for damage following loss of chance in treatment in acute neurological diseases in the legal systems of Iran, England, and the United States.

Methods: This research is a review study. Keywords, including "Loss of chance", "Medical malpractice", "Causation" and "Medical liability" were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, SID, Magiran and Noormags databases. Relevant legal texts and selected case law were studied and analyzed.

Ethical Considerations: Throughout all stages of the present research, the authenticity of sources and the principles of honesty and academic integrity were observed.

Results: The findings indicate that English law, with a conservative approach, generally refuses to recognize loss of chance as an independent compensable damage.  In contrast, many U.S. jurisdictions,  by adopting a proportional loss of recovery, have provided a more ethically responsive compensation framework for the damage suffered by patients. Despite having significant ethical and jurisprudential foundations, Iranian law faces a gap between time-sensitive medical realities and legal remedies due to the lack of explicit recognition of this doctrine.

Conclusion: Disregarding loss of treatment opportunity solely due to uncertainty in outcomes is inconsistent with the principles of medical ethics and therapeutic justice. Ethical-legal recognition of loss of chance, subject to scientific and legal safeguards, can be an effective step towards fair protection of patients, especially in acute neurological diseases.