In February 2017, the European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses made a "Submission to UN Human Rights Committee subsequent to the adoption of the List of Issues on the sixth periodic report of ITALY".
The 119th Session of the Human Rights Committee is currently underway - the dates are March 6 - March 29.
The WTS has been trying to get "intesa" status in Italy for decades and this latest submission to the UN highlights the problems the JWs are encountering in Italy concerning the blood taboo.
This link will take you to a downloadable word document that is the WT's submission being considered:
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/ITA/INT_CCPR_CSS_ITA_26670_E.docx
The following court cases, concerning blood refusal, are a large part of the JW's submission that they are being unfairly discriminated against. Keep in mind that these cases are being presented from the point of view of the WT:
32. Court of Cassation, Third Civil Division, no. 4211 of 2007: Mr Setti (one of Jehovah’s Witnesses) was admitted to the hospital fully conscious following a traffic accident. He consented to surgery but instructed his doctors that he absolutely refused blood transfusions. In disregard of that choice, he was transfused during surgery. He sued for damages; his claim was dismissed at trial and on appeal. The Court of Cassation held that his refusal of blood transfusions could be ignored because his medical condition changed during surgery and the doctors could not ‘consult’ him about that change because he was sedated. In other words, although Mr Setti had clearly and precisely instructed doctors of his firm decision to refuse blood transfusions based on his religious conscience, his competent refusal of blood was overturned because the Court of Cassation was of the view that the medical information the doctors provided to him before surgery was insufficient.
34. Court of Cassation, Third Civil Division, judgment no. 23676 of 2008: Mr Grassato (one of Jehovah’s Witnesses) was unconscious when admitted to the hospital. He was carrying in his wallet an advance medical directive refusing blood transfusions. He was transfused while unconscious and developed hepatitis. He sued for the disregard of his personal autonomy and religious conscience. His claim and subsequent appeals were dismissed. In rejecting his appeal, the Court of Cassation ruled that a clear and precise refusal of treatment must “follow and not precede the information [given by the doctors]”. It will only be valid if it is “an ex post refusal and not an ex ante one”. Paradoxically, after holding that Mr Grassato’s advance medical directive was not valid (solely because it was made before and not after he was admitted to hospital), the court concluded: “This, however, does not mean that whenever [one of Jehovah’s Witnesses] is unconscious, he must therefore undergo a medical treatment contrary to his faith. But in such a case … the objection to the health treatment needs to be expressed either by the patient himself by carrying a detailed, accurate, and explicit statement unmistakably testifying his refusal of transfusions even at the risk of his life, or by a different person appointed by him as his agent” (emphasis in original). This was precisely what Mr Grassato had done by means of his advance medical directive.
37. Court of Cassation, First Civil Division, judgment no. 21743 of 2016: Mr. Ciucci (one of Jehovah’s Witnesses)—age 45, married, and a business owner—admitted himself to the hospital for medical care. He instructed his doctors in the clearest of terms that he must not “under ANY circumstances” be given blood transfusions. Hours later, he was sedated for long-term treatment. The next day, Siena court Judge Paulo Bernardini ruled to authorize forced blood transfusions in total disregard of Mr Ciucci’s competent refusal. Judge Bernardini ruled that “health is a primary interest ... to the point that we have to ignore [Mr Ciucci’s] wishes”. Doctors imposed at least 15 blood transfusions on Mr. Ciucci in profound disregard of his religious conscience. Alternatives to blood transfusions (which were available and effective) were not considered. When Mr Ciucci finally regained consciousness, he joined in an urgent appeal filed by his wife and support administrator. The appeal court refused to declare Judge Bernardini’s decision unlawful and, instead, merely discontinued the proceedings. The Supreme Court of Cassation refused to intervene.
41. Court of Milan, Fifth Civil Division, no. 6052/2015 of 13 May 2015: Doctors forcibly transfused a conscious and competent adult woman who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Relying on Setti and Grassato, the court concluded that although she had repeatedly refused blood transfusions and was conscious when transfused, her refusal could only be considered valid if she had got up from her hospital bed (despite the fact she was suffering a haemorrhage) and walked out of the hospital. Because she did not, the court decided that the doctors were justified in forcing blood transfusions.
42. Court of Brescia, Second Civil Division, no. 1886/2016 of 17 June 2016: A conscious and competent adult woman who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses was admitted to the hospital for elective surgery. She instructed doctors of her absolute refusal of blood transfusions and provided them with a copy of her advance medical directive. She was forcibly transfused during surgery. She sued for damages. In rejecting her claim, the court relied on Setti and Grossato to conclude her refusal of blood transfusions was not valid. It reasoned that during the doctors’ discussion with the patient, they incorrectly stated there was a ‘possibility’ rather than a ‘probability’ they would consider blood to be necessary during the surgery. The court asserted that this alleged lack of information meant that the adult patient could not give an informed refusal of blood transfusion and therefore these same doctors were justified in forcing blood transfusions.
43. Genoa Court of Appeal, Third Civil Division, decision published 19 July 2016: A conscious and competent adult man who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, suffering from a chronic bleeding disorder, applied to the Guardianship Judge to confirm his choice of a support administrator in his advance medical directive to ensure he would not be transfused if he ever became unconscious. The Guardianship Judge rejected that application, relying on Grassato (judgment no. 23676/2008) (Doc 36, p. 2). The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that a support administrator can only be appointed if the beneficiary is legally incapable. It also ruled that such an appointment, even if granted, could not protect the applicant from a forced blood transfusion since doctors can override such a refusal in an alleged ‘life-threatening’ situation.
44. Genoa Court of Appeal, Third Civil Division, decision published 2 May 2015: An unconscious adult man who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses was admitted to the hospital. He was carrying an advance medical directive refusing blood transfusions which also appointed his wife as support administrator. The wife applied to the Guardianship Judge to confirm her appointment as support administrator. The judge confirmed the wife’s appointment but, relying on Setti (no. 4211/2007) and Grassato (no. 23676/2008), prohibited the wife from refusing consent to blood transfusions notwithstanding the husband’s clear and precise refusal of blood transfusions as stated in his advance medical directive. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, claiming it was not within its competence. The case is now pending before the Court of Cassation.
*************
Out of all the cases described in the summation, I found this ruling to be the most compelling:
"...the Court of Cassation ruled that a clear and precise refusal of treatment must “follow and not precede the information [given by the doctors]”. It will only be valid if it is “an ex post refusal and not an ex ante one”."
This is an interesting position to take and one that bypasses the WT's erroneous information that goes into the "informed decision" process. What this ruling does is acknowledge that the WT's information that was given to the patient, before the doctor's consultation, is incomplete and cannot be enough to base a sound medical decision on.