This article aims to explain the position and capacity of jurisprudence principles in extracting Sharia rulings related to emerging issues in the field of health and medicine, especially in the context of rapid technological developments and bioethical challenges. The research approach was a combination of analysis of jurisprudential texts, a comparative study of selected legal systems, and a field analysis of objective examples of health policymaking. The results show that rules such as non-harm, necessity, self-preservation, and beneficence, when reviewed with current scientific data, can provide a dynamic and efficient framework for complex medical decision-making. A comparative study with international legal systems also showed that although there is significant overlap in goals, differences in reasoning and prioritization processes prevent direct transfer of rulings and require localization of principles in an executive format. The findings emphasize the importance of creating a cycle between theory and practice in which jurisprudential ijtihad is formed in an interdisciplinary manner and with the continuous participation of jurists, physicians, lawyers, and policymakers, so that along with theoretical legitimacy, it also has the ability to be implemented and socially accepted. Also, public discourse on the philosophy and goals of medical jurisprudence rulings has been identified as a key factor in reducing resistance and strengthening community participation in health policies. Finally, it is suggested that three streams of redefining fundamental concepts in line with scientific developments, developing comparative studies to enrich and learn problem-solving methods, and institutionalizing the executive rulings proceed simultaneously