https://youtu.be/xhPNp8xtsK4?si=KQ55Iap5anhleHgd
So on the 17th of September the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned Spain over a case involving a Jehovah’s Witness who was given a blood transfusion during emergency surgery, against her will, this case was well documented earlier last year as a victory for the exjw community and a sign that European countries are turning on the Watchtower, unfortunately this was a shortlived victory since the finally authority are no longer countries and their courts but nefarious organizations like the ECHR that over rule their decisions, and I'm afraid this is the same way is going to go if the victory in Norway ends up in Strasburg in the hands of the ECHR.
The case involved an Ecuadorian national residing in Spain, who was given a transfusion despite her religious objections.
Spain found itself in a difficult position when confronted with this case. The country had to make a decision in a life-or-death situation where medical professionals believed a blood transfusion was necessary to save Rosa’s life. Despite knowing her religious beliefs prohibited receiving blood, the urgency of the situation led the hospital to proceed without consent. Spain's defense argued that medical professionals acted with the best intentions, prioritizing the immediate need to save a life. However, the ECHR ruled that this decision violated Rosa’s right to personal autonomy and religious freedom under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court’s ruling once again sided with the religious freedoms of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as it has done repeatedly in the past. The ECHR has consistently maintained that religious beliefs must be respected, even when they conflict with medical opinions.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have a long-standing objection to blood transfusions, rooted in their religious teachings. They believe that accepting blood violates God’s law, and thus refuse transfusions, even in critical medical situations. This position, however, has resulted in a hidden tragedy for many followers. By refusing blood transfusions, Jehovah’s Witnesses are often put in life-threatening situations where their adherence to doctrine comes at the ultimate price: their lives. This refusal is nothing more than a form of human sacrifice, where individuals are coerced by religious teachings into giving up their lives. In ancient times pagan priests would sacrifice innocent lives on the altar to appease their gods and in the same way these modern day priests of Satan sacrifice innocent lives under the vice of doctrine to appease their god who is not the god of the Bible but their blood thirsty dark lord. .
The ECHR, by consistently siding with Jehovah’s Witnesses in these cases, reinforces the idea that religious freedom should be respected above all else. However, this raises difficult ethical questions. Should the rights of individuals to adhere to their religious beliefs be upheld when those beliefs endanger their lives? And where is the line between personal freedom and the state's responsibility to protect life?
The court’s unwavering support of Jehovah’s Witnesses, while grounded in human rights principles, has led to concerns that it indirectly endorses a doctrine that results in preventable deaths. The refusal to receive a blood transfusion, seen by some as a choice, may in reality be a coerced decision made under pressure from a community that demands compliance at any cost.
Ultimately, while religious freedoms are essential to democratic societies, the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions poses uncomfortable questions about the limits of those freedoms. How many more lives will be lost before a balance is struck between respecting religious beliefs and protecting the sanctity of life?