Courts of Denmark All Lands Supreme Court News and Judicial Summaries Blood transfusion to a member of Jehovah's Witnesses was legal
01 FEB 2022
SUPREME COURT
Blood transfusion to a member of Jehovah's Witnesses was legal
It was legal to give a blood transfusion to an unconscious patient who was a member of Jehovah's Witnesses and whose life was in danger.
Case BS-49811/2020-HJR
Judgment rendered on February 1, 2022
The Danish Agency for Patient Complaints
against the
succession after A
and
B
A, who was a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith community, was rushed to hospital after a fall. After 2-3 days of hospitalization, he received a blood transfusion in an unconscious state. The health care staff knew that A had previously indicated that as a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, he did not wish to receive blood under any circumstances, whether or not it was necessary to preserve his life. This was evident from, among other things, a card A was carrying at the time of his admission. A month later, A died without regaining consciousness. The cause of death was not related to the blood transfusion.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the blood transfusion was in breach of the Health Act or the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Health Act had the power to give blood to A while he was in an unconscious state. The Supreme Court pointed out that after the accident, A had not been able to express his wishes for treatment due to the current state of his illness. The fact that A was carrying a card at the time of the fall and hospitalization, from which it appeared that he did not want to receive blood, did not satisfy the requirement of s. 24(1) of the Health Act. 2, that a refusal to receive blood must be given with full knowledge of the facts in relation to the current state of the illness. The Supreme Court also noted that at the time of the blood transfusion, A was in a condition where a blood transfusion was necessary for his survival.
The Supreme Court further stated that there was no reason to assume that the treatment was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court emphasized, among other things, that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights did not allow for the assumption that the national legislator was precluded from laying down, as part of a comprehensive examination of various considerations, the detailed conditions under which the declarations of members of Jehovah's Witnesses who do not wish to receive blood should be binding on health professionals. The Supreme Court also noted that A was treated with, among other things, the first few days of his hospitalization. hematopoietic medication in order to accommodate his previous statements of not wanting to receive blood.