The Rule of All two Equal Interests that Cannot be Combined, so Choose Between Them: A Model Study of Practical Purposes and the Question of Entitlement to Treatment When Crowding Out

Abstract

This study deals with a rule of intentionality related to the jurisprudence of budgets. This rule is concerned with showing the weighing between equal and conflicting interests that could not be reconciled, so that some of them can then be sacrificed to preserve the others and gain them. In accordance, applying it to the branches of jurisprudence and the question of the right to treatment when crowding.
The researcher divided the research into three sections. The first is a statement of what is meant by conflicting equal interests. The extent to which it is permissible to equal conflicting interests. The second is a statement of how to weigh between conflicting interests and their applications in the branches of jurisprudence. The third is a statement of the impact of the rule on the issue of the right to treatment when competing, according to the descriptive-analytical method.
The researcher concluded that if the weighing process was not possible based on objective criteria such as the type of interest, impact, or rank، then weighing by choice or lot, or stopping according to the most appropriate would be resorted. It was impossible to consider the normative and objective descriptions related to the same disease, namely the hope of acquittal and its severity. It is prescribed to resort to procedural descriptions, which is the priority of access to the hospital and the way of drawing lots.