عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
In this paper, in one hand, the term of "ill" has been critically studied with a viewpoint of new illnesses, the end of which is death; and it has been restated considering the three criterions including avoiding the daily activity, being dangerous and fatal. And in the other hand, the conception of the necessity of law's silence has been criticized briefly and vaguely. It has been proved that being silent toward denial and approval, is actually approving denial. Accordingly, the theorem of meaningfulness of the legislator's silence toward the interdiction of the ill is strengthened, and the legislator's opposition toward the well-known theorem and accepting the former jurisprudents' idea which states that the final illness has the right to take position of his property completely, is proved. In addition, the conception of paradoxes in the articles of civil law about the interdiction of the final ill, especially in the articles of 944 and 945 is nullified by ill's general and special terminology. In these articles, the term illness comprises all types of illness. But in the interdiction of final illness, it is special and comprises only an ill that is leading to death and has the three criterions.