Lawyers' Lack of Moral Commitment to Comply with Criminal Requirements Regarding Helping Others

Objective: In Iran, the law mandates punishment for failing to assist injured individuals, reflecting a commitment to health ethics. However, both the public and legal professionals often fail to comply fully with these legal obligations. The core issue lies in the tension between moral autonomy and the coercive nature of law, which complicates lawyers' responses to such situations. This study addresses a gap in current research by examining how ethical-legal tensions influence lawyers’ decisions in practice. Methods and Materials: Employing a qualitative grounded theory method, this research explores lawyers’ real-life motivations and beliefs without starting from a pre-set hypothesis. Twenty-one lawyers were randomly selected and interviewed in-depth. The analysis led to the identification of key categories and the separation of causal conditions, strategies, and consequences. Findings: Findings reveal that lawyers often avoid helping injured persons due to fear of legal repercussions. Some shift responsibility to the state, while others opt for lower-risk, selective forms of assistance. This behavior reflects a prioritization of personal ethics over the legal and moral imperative to help. The trend highlights a broader decline in lawyers' willingness to intervene in emergencies. Conclusion: In conclusion, legal penalties associated with assisting injured individuals—particularly fugitives—discourage lawyers from acting, even when motivated by compassion. The conflation of help for the injured and for fugitives under punitive laws causes a chilling effect. As compassion is fundamentally the same in both cases, lawmakers should reconsider current statutes and adopt a more nuanced and ethically flexible approach to encouraging assistance.