Volume 20, Issue 61 (4-2026)
MLJ 2026, 20(61): 1008-1024 |
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:
Esmaeilpour M A. Evaluation and Analysis of Judicial Precedent Regarding Instances of Interference in Medical Treatment. MLJ 2026; 20 (61) :1008-1024
URL: http://ijmedicallaw.ir/article-1-2130-en.html
URL: http://ijmedicallaw.ir/article-1-2130-en.html
Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, University of Judicial Science and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:
Background and Aim: The principle of legality regarding crimes and punishments stands as a beacon atop the framework of criminal law, illuminating the boundaries of criminal conduct; yet, a shadow of ambiguity has fallen over criminal justice because the judicial determination of cases - and the classification of acts as the offense of "unauthorized medical practice" - has become inextricably linked to the directives and reports issued by the Deputy for Treatment at the University of Medical Sciences. The rapid expansion of aesthetic services - such as laser hair removal, tattooing, and tanning beds - has posed a fundamental question for the judiciary: do these procedures, when performed by an operator or technician (whether a physician is present or absent), constitute the offense defined in Article 3 of the *Law on Medical, Pharmaceutical, and Food/Beverage Affairs* (ratified in 1955) - specifically, the crime of unauthorized medical practice? Courts have frequently adopted an approach of unquestioning adherence to reports from the Ministry of Health; while this practice may reflect judicial concern for public health and the specialized nature of the subject matter, it fails to withstand scrutiny under the principles of criminal law, as the criminalization of conduct falls within the exclusive purview of the legislature rather than the executive branch.
Method: Drawing upon library resources and judicial rulings, and employing a descriptive-analytical approach, this study endeavors to reflect, evaluate, and analyze the views and reasoning of judges regarding the definition, elements, and instances of the offense of unauthorized interference in medical and allied health practices.
Ethical Considerations: This research was written based on ethical and trustworthiness principles.
Results: Some judges, relying on principles such as the legality of crimes and punishments, the rule against punishment without prior notice (*qubh-e ‘iqab-e bila-bayan*), the requirement for a strict interpretation of penal laws, and the principle of interpreting the law in favor of the accused, have held that the aforementioned instances do not fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Law on Medical, Pharmaceutical, Food, and Beverage Affairs (enacted in 1955); conversely, the majority of judges, citing the same law, regard the Ministry of Health as the authority responsible for identifying instances of unauthorized medical practice and accordingly issue convictions.
Conclusion: The aforementioned legal lacuna, ambiguity, and lack of specificity necessitate that the legislator redefine the concept, elements, and instances of "interference in medical affairs"; furthermore, pending the enactment of new legislation, judges should base their decisions on established legal principles and jurisprudential rules, rather than blindly deferring to the reports of law enforcement officers.
Please cite this article as:
Esmaeilpour MA. Evaluation and Analysis of Judicial Precedent Regarding Instances of Interference in Medical Treatment. Medical Law Journal. 2026; 20: e66.
Method: Drawing upon library resources and judicial rulings, and employing a descriptive-analytical approach, this study endeavors to reflect, evaluate, and analyze the views and reasoning of judges regarding the definition, elements, and instances of the offense of unauthorized interference in medical and allied health practices.
Ethical Considerations: This research was written based on ethical and trustworthiness principles.
Results: Some judges, relying on principles such as the legality of crimes and punishments, the rule against punishment without prior notice (*qubh-e ‘iqab-e bila-bayan*), the requirement for a strict interpretation of penal laws, and the principle of interpreting the law in favor of the accused, have held that the aforementioned instances do not fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Law on Medical, Pharmaceutical, Food, and Beverage Affairs (enacted in 1955); conversely, the majority of judges, citing the same law, regard the Ministry of Health as the authority responsible for identifying instances of unauthorized medical practice and accordingly issue convictions.
Conclusion: The aforementioned legal lacuna, ambiguity, and lack of specificity necessitate that the legislator redefine the concept, elements, and instances of "interference in medical affairs"; furthermore, pending the enactment of new legislation, judges should base their decisions on established legal principles and jurisprudential rules, rather than blindly deferring to the reports of law enforcement officers.
Please cite this article as:
Esmaeilpour MA. Evaluation and Analysis of Judicial Precedent Regarding Instances of Interference in Medical Treatment. Medical Law Journal. 2026; 20: e66.
Keywords: Interference in Medical Matters, Tattoo, Laser, Do No-Harm Rule, Rule of Ugliness of the Eagle without Words, Custom
Type of Study: Original Article |
Received: 2026/07/20 | Accepted: 2026/10/1
Received: 2026/07/20 | Accepted: 2026/10/1
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
