Previous Issues

Research outline:

A physician is deemed a common wageworker in most times, treatment is deemed – between physician and patient – a correct lease contract fulfills the required conditions of benefit and Remuneration.

0. Upon this, the majority of jurisprudents legalized physician Remuneration but the contemporary scholar Abo Zahra Forbids this lease, his view is based upon several bases. Since physician’s work is a collective duty or persond duty, the charged physician remuneration is in return for unknown benefit which is the recovery, the condition of content is absent in treatment agreement, all the precedents make the agreement false.

Through studying the evidence of the majority in comparison with Abo Zahra’s one, we find that the majority opinion prevail, except in cases where treatment is a obligatory duty or when physicians monopolize their work. In these cases Abo Zahra’s point of view is applied and the treatment agreement becomes false, the physician is compelled to do his work, and the charged remuneration is the one common for people.

1. There is a disagreement among jurisprudents in determining physician’s Remuneration. Some of them fully legalize it, others forbid it on conditions and some jurisprudents legalize it on conditions.
2. After studying different proofs we prefer the point of view, which forbids it in normal circumstances with out taking advantage or oppression, and legalizes it in exceptional conditions in which oppression is found. The government or its representatives bear the responsibility to determine the Remuneration upon the one of the same cadre, or the fair Remuneration which suits physician’s knowledge, experience, the utility gained from his knowledge and his capacity to innovate.