Rejection of Transplanted Organ in the Legal System of Civil Liability in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim : Rejection of transplanted organ refers to a phenomenon where the immune system of the body refuses to accept the transplanted organ. This review is conducted to identify the liability of the staff in complications of organ transplantation process and in particular, the role of donor and in the liability arising from it. Materials and Methods : In the present review, utilizing the keywords of organ transplantation, civil liability, and rejection in databases of Magiran, Google, SID, the related articles are studied and analyzed. Ethical Considerations : Honesty in the literature and citation analysis and reporting were considered. Findings : The liability arising from rejection and other complications of transplantation, has usually a contractual figure, and unlike other medical responsibilities, it has a feature that there are two contracts of transfer of organ between donor and recipient and therapy behind it. In cases where transplant rejection is caused by a defect in the transplanted organ and the donor is aware of it, transplant rejection is attributed to the with no goodwill; with violation of implied term of the transplanted organ health in the contract between the donor and recipient, his liability is the case. Therapy contract follows the general rule enacted by the new Islamic Penal Code adopted in 2013, and the doctor and other factors caused transplant rejection, in case of fault, are responsible for compensation for the damages to the transplanted organ recipient. Conclusion : In principle, donor and devisees of a person who is brain dead, in many cases, are exempt from the liability arising from transplant rejection or other complications, according to benefaction rule, and in cases where transplant rejection is attributed to the recipient, he/she is exempt from compensation. Citation: Rostami Chelkasari E, Khafi S. Rejection of Transplanted Organ in The Legal System of Civil Liability in Iran. Bioeth Health Law J. 2017; 1(2):23-32.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".