A Reflection on the Status Ruling on "Ownership of a Transplanted Organ"

   New treatment methods have brought new issues before religious science specialists, and one of these challenging issues is organ transplantation from humans or animals. Regardless of the principle of jurisprudence behind the permissibility or impermissibility of organ transplantation, the ownership of a transplanted organ in terms of its related effects, such as guarantee and payment, is always the source of debate and conflict, since it is subjected to jurisprudential sub-rulings on organ impurity, transplant permissibility or non-permissibility, and obligatory ritual purities. The main goal of this research is to examine the status ruling of human ownership in relation to the transplanted organ and to explain its jurisprudential foundations. Some people believe in the theory of ownership of organs based on the principle of ‘taslit’ or dominance and ascribing the status of property to the body organs. According to another theory, however, due to the non-absoluteness of human possessions, the transplanted organ falls outside ownership and its transaction is not allowed. The present study, which was carried out in a descriptive-analytical method, tries to justify the human ownership of the transplanted organ on the basis that the emergence of a rational benefit exempts the removed organ from the sanction of the transaction and the attribute of ‘maita’ or dead body- related rulings. In addition, the preservation of human life is also one of the interests that restricts the generality of the primary evidence, and this is the main finding of the research.