Volume 20, Issue 61 (4-2026)
MLJ 2026, 20(61): 487-502 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ameri Z, Khosravi A. Violation of the Right to Health of Clinical Staff in Light of Mandatory Overtime (with Reference to the Law on Enhancing the Productivity of Clinical Staff in the Health System). MLJ 2026; 20 (61) :487-502
URL: http://ijmedicallaw.ir/article-1-1994-en.html
URL: http://ijmedicallaw.ir/article-1-1994-en.html
1- . Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative and Economic Sciences, University of Bojnord, Bojnord, Iran.
2- Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran.
2- Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran.
Abstract:
Background and Aim: The phenomenon of mandatory overtime among healthcare professionals in Iran has emerged as one of the most contentious legal and managerial challenges within the healthcare system over the past two decades. This study critically examines the Single Article Act on Enhancing the Productivity of Clinical Staff in the Health System (2009) and its implementing regulations, addressing the fundamental question of whether the imposition of additional working hours without the explicit and informed consent of healthcare personnel can be considered legally justified under the doctrines of public law and labor law.
Method: This research adopts a descriptive–analytical approach. Data were collected through library-based sources, including statutory texts, legal doctrine, and relevant academic literature.
Ethical Considerations: The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of research ethics, integrity, and accuracy in scholarly representation.
Results: The Act contains no explicit prohibition against the imposition of overtime without consent. This legislative silence, particularly in situations of peak service demand, allows for interpretative ambiguity whereby employers may construe the phrase “as needed” as implicitly authorizing compulsory overtime. However, by relying on general labor regulations prohibiting involuntary overtime and interpreting the statute in light of its underlying purpose and normative spirit, such compulsion may be deemed legally impermissible.
Conclusion: The current legal framework lacks a clear and enforceable mechanism for reconciling the continuity of public healthcare services with the fundamental rights of clinical personnel. The legislator’s failure to precisely define and narrowly circumscribe emergency conditions as a lawful exception to the prohibition of imposed overtime undermines legal certainty and the rule of law. Accordingly, legislative reform grounded in the principle of proportionality is required, ensuring that while public health service continuity is preserved in crisis situations, any imposed overtime is strictly exceptional, adequately compensated, and does not compromise the occupational rights and health of clinical staff, which are essential to the sustainability of the healthcare system.
Please cite this article as:
Ameri Z, Khosravi A. Violation of the Right to Health of Clinical Staff in Light of Mandatory Overtime (with a Look at the Law on Improving the Productivity of Clinical Staff in the Health System). Medical Law Journal. 2026; 20: e32.
Method: This research adopts a descriptive–analytical approach. Data were collected through library-based sources, including statutory texts, legal doctrine, and relevant academic literature.
Ethical Considerations: The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of research ethics, integrity, and accuracy in scholarly representation.
Results: The Act contains no explicit prohibition against the imposition of overtime without consent. This legislative silence, particularly in situations of peak service demand, allows for interpretative ambiguity whereby employers may construe the phrase “as needed” as implicitly authorizing compulsory overtime. However, by relying on general labor regulations prohibiting involuntary overtime and interpreting the statute in light of its underlying purpose and normative spirit, such compulsion may be deemed legally impermissible.
Conclusion: The current legal framework lacks a clear and enforceable mechanism for reconciling the continuity of public healthcare services with the fundamental rights of clinical personnel. The legislator’s failure to precisely define and narrowly circumscribe emergency conditions as a lawful exception to the prohibition of imposed overtime undermines legal certainty and the rule of law. Accordingly, legislative reform grounded in the principle of proportionality is required, ensuring that while public health service continuity is preserved in crisis situations, any imposed overtime is strictly exceptional, adequately compensated, and does not compromise the occupational rights and health of clinical staff, which are essential to the sustainability of the healthcare system.
Please cite this article as:
Ameri Z, Khosravi A. Violation of the Right to Health of Clinical Staff in Light of Mandatory Overtime (with a Look at the Law on Improving the Productivity of Clinical Staff in the Health System). Medical Law Journal. 2026; 20: e32.
Keywords: Right to Health, Mandatory Overtime, Clinical Staff, Emergency Conditions, Public Healthcare Services
Type of Study: Original Article |
Received: 2025/08/15 | Accepted: 2026/04/26
Received: 2025/08/15 | Accepted: 2026/04/26
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
