عنوان مقاله [English]
It is difficult to discern the religious and legal duty to save the lives of those trapped or to save the lives of rescuers in dangerous situations that seriously threaten the life or physical health of the rescuers. This research has reviewed the reasons and jurisprudential documents in a descriptive-analytical method and concluded different rulings by rereading the evidence of venturous search and rescue in different situations. Rescue and treatment in the case of equality of lives are not obligatory, because both of the lives must be saved. It is not obligatory, according to the necessity of the Ḥadīth (“News” or “Story”) of “prohibition of detriment (Arabic: لا ضَرَرَ, Ḥadīth of harm)” and the generalization of harmful worships and food to the situation of physical harm, on the savior to suffer the harm in the absence of protective equipment for the purpose of treating and repel the harm from others. However, according to the absoluteness of the proofs of search and rescue, preference (Arabic: رُجْجان, Rujḥān) and recommendation (Arabic: اسْتِحْباب, Istiḥbāb) were proved in these conditions. It is rejected to refer to the Ḥadīth of “No Infectiousness (Arabic: لا عَدْوی)” in denying the contagion of disease and staying in the environment of the outbreak of the contagious disease. However, the rescuers in the field of medicine and nursing, in addition to having knowledge, expertise and equipment, according to the commitment, should provide treatment as much as possible as secondary necessity. However, it is not possible to sentence to the liability of a leaver of rescue in case of failing (abandoning) to rescue in these circumstances, although the leaver has committed a sin.