"Historic Trial for the People of Jehovah in Brazil"

[grain of mustard]

On 31/07/2025 at 09:11, Pionner_who said:

 

---

 

Ontem, o seguinte anúncio foi feito em congregações por todo o Brasil:

Atualização sobre o julgamento no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF):
O Supremo Tribunal Federal agendou, de 8 a 18 de agosto de 2025, o julgamento de um recurso do Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM), que contesta a recente decisão sobre o nosso direito de receber tratamento médico sem o uso de sangue. Questiona também se o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) é obrigado a respeitar a nossa posição e a fornecer tal tratamento.

2. Assim como fizemos antes, pedimos que orem para que Jeová abençoe todos os irmãos envolvidos neste caso e que, se for da Sua vontade, os juízes do Supremo Tribunal Federal mantenham a decisão. Desta vez, os juízes conduzirão o julgamento virtualmente, portanto, não haverá transmissão. Conforme declarado em A Sentinela de 15 de novembro de 2013, página 7: “Não é que Jeová seja forçado a agir só porque muitos de seus adoradores oram pela mesma coisa. A questão é que ele observa nossa preocupação coletiva e, ao responder às nossas orações, leva em conta nosso profundo e sincero interesse.”
   Portanto, estamos plenamente confiantes de que o resultado deste julgamento trará louvor ao nome de Jeová.

Continuemos rezando para que as decisões tomadas permaneçam as mesmas.

Any news about the trial? It starts today. Let's stay informed if anything happens. Also, let's not forget to pray. May Jehovah protect us. 

[Pionner_who]

31 minutes ago, grain of mustard said:

Any news about the trial? It starts today. Let's stay informed if anything happens. Also, let's not forget to pray. May Jehovah protect us. 

Not yet. This time, the hearing will not be televised. The justices will simply cast their votes in writing. That’s why there is this interval between the 8th and the 18th. But I’m following the updates on the Supreme Court’s official website, and I’ll share any news about the votes here. Just as a reminder, the justices of the Supreme Court usually work only in the afternoons, generally starting at 2:00 p.m (Brazil time)
 

Edited August 8 by Pionner_who

[Pionner_who]

Here’s a translation of the key content from the PDF into English:

---

### **Supreme Court of Brazil**  
**Embargo of Declaration in Extraordinary Appeal No. 1,212,272 - Alagoas**  

**Rapporteur: Justice Gilmar Mendes**  

#### **Vote**  

**Justice Gilmar Mendes (Rapporteur):** The issue under analysis is whether, preliminarily, it is possible to admit an embargo of declaration filed by a party not involved in the procedural relationship and, if so, whether the appealed decision suffers from the vice of omission.  

#### **1) Inadmissibility of the Embargo of Declaration Filed by the CFM**  

The present embargo of declaration should not be admitted. According to established jurisprudence of this Supreme Court, third parties not involved in the procedural relationship lack standing to file an embargo of declaration. Relevant precedents include:  

- *RE 695.911 ED-quartos-AgR* (2022), Justice Dias Toffoli;  
- *RE 754.917 ED* (2020), Justice Dias Toffoli;  
- *RE 848.826 ED-AgR* (2019), Justice Ricardo Lewandowski.  

Thus, the embargo is inadmissible.  

#### **2) Absence of Omissions Alleged**  

An embargo of declaration is only admissible to address obscurity, contradiction, or omission in the decision, or to correct material errors (Art. 1,022 of the CPC). It is not a means to challenge the decision’s conclusions or premises.  

**Precedents:**  
- *ADI 6,719-ED/AM* (2022): Embargos cannot be used to reargue the matter or seek an infringing effect.  
- *ADI 3,287-ED/DF* (2020): Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome does not justify an embargo.  

In this case, the appealed decision explicitly addressed:  
1. **Life-threatening situations:** Medical professionals must act diligently, respecting the patient’s beliefs while employing all compatible life-saving measures.  
2. **Patient autonomy:** Refusal of treatment (e.g., blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses) is valid only if the patient’s free, informed, and conscious will is expressed—orally or in writing (e.g., advance directives). Absent such expression, physicians must act to preserve life.  

No omissions or contradictions were found in the original decision.  

#### **3) Conclusion**  

The embargo of declaration is **inadmissible** and, even if examined, lacks merit.  

---

### **Key Terms:**  
- **Embargo of Declaration:** A motion to clarify or correct judicial decisions.  
- **Extraordinary Appeal (RE):** A challenge to constitutional issues before Brazil’s Supreme Court.  
- **Repercussão Geral:** A doctrine filtering appeals of national significance.  

Let me know if you’d like further refinements or specific sections expanded.

1x0 for JW

[Doug]

12 hours ago, Pionner_who said:

 

The present embargo of declaration should not be admitted. 
- *ADI 6,719-ED/AM* (2022): Embargos cannot be used to reargue the matter or seek an infringing effect.  
- *ADI 3,287-ED/DF* (2020): Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome does not justify an embargo.  

 

No omissions or contradictions were found in the original decision.  

The embargo of declaration is **inadmissible** and, even if examined, lacks merit. 

 

Que bom!!!      

[grain of mustard]

https://www.cartacapital.com.br/justica/stf-tem-2-votos-para-manter-decisao-que-permite-testemunha-de-jeova-recusar-transfusao-de-sangue/

 

we have 2 votes in favor 

[Brandon]

3 hours ago, grain of mustard said:

we have 2 votes in favor

In practical terms, what does that mean? What’s the status of the case?

[Pionner_who]

54 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Em termos práticos, o que isso significa? Qual é o status do caso?

The Federal Medical Council filed a lawsuit to overturn what was decided last year — basically a legal term and some appeals. The ministers either vote in favor (meaning they agree with what the CFM asked) or against (meaning last year’s decision still stands). The rapporteur voted against the appeal, meaning he didn’t agree with the CFM’s request. Today, a female minister voted along with him. In other words, she sided with the first minister’s vote. According to a lawyer, this time only five ministers will vote. So, if more of them agree with the rapporteur, the CFM’s request gets rejected and last year’s decision stays in effect.

[grain of mustard]

51 minutos atrás, Pionner_who disse:

O Conselho Federal de Medicina entrou com uma ação judicial para anular a decisão do ano passado — basicamente um termo legal e alguns recursos. Os ministros votam a favor (ou seja, concordam com o que o CFM solicita) ou contra (ou seja, a decisão do ano passado permanece válida). O relator votou contra o recurso, ou seja, não solicitado com o pedido do CFM. Hoje, uma ministra votou junto com ele. Em outras palavras, ela acompanhou o voto do primeiro-ministro. Segundo um advogado, desta vez, apenas cinco ministros votarão. Portanto, se os mais ministros concordarem com o relator, o pedido do CFM é rejeitado e a decisão do ano passado permanece em vigor.

It seems that we already have 3 favorable votes. The 3rd minister followed the rapporteur 

[grain of mustard]

https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5703626

[Brandon]

According to to ChatGPT 

• The virtual-plenary vote is still being processed and the virtual session is scheduled to finish on 18 August 2025, so a final outcome (full composition of votes) could appear by then.

And we need 6 votes total to solidify our medical rights as JWs in Brazil, although I think this decision will only affect adult witnesses.

Edited August 11 by Brandon

[Doug]

3 hours ago, Brandon said:

 

And we need 6 votes total to solidify our medical rights as JWs in Brazil, although I think this decision will only affect adult witnesses.

 

Nathan said there are just 5 ministers involved on this appeal, unless I misunderstood him. And 3 have already voted to reject the appeal (on process and merit).

[Dages]

5 hours ago, Pionner_who said:

The Federal Medical Council filed a lawsuit to overturn what was decided last year — basically a legal term and some appeals. The ministers either vote in favor (meaning they agree with what the CFM asked) or against (meaning last year’s decision still stands). The rapporteur voted against the appeal, meaning he didn’t agree with the CFM’s request. Today, a female minister voted along with him. In other words, she sided with the first minister’s vote. According to a lawyer, this time only five ministers will vote. So, if more of them agree with the rapporteur, the CFM’s request gets rejected and last year’s decision stays in effect.

what was last year decision?

Edited August 12 by Dages

[grain of mustard]

4 votos a nosso favor 4x0 

Edited August 12 by grain of mustard

[Brandon]

In 2024 the Federal Supreme Court (STF) ruled that competent adults who are Jehovah’s Witnesses may refuse medical procedures that involve blood transfusion — and the state (SUS) must, when necessary, provide available alternative treatments and cover costs

[grain of mustard]

We already have five votes in favor. If all ministers vote, there will be 11 votes in total. Therefore, we need one more vote in favor to have a majority and guarantee our freedom of choice in medical treatments without the use of blood transfusions.

 

https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5703626#conteudo

Edited August 14 by Dages
I added the government website link

[Pionner_who]

Yesterday, by late afternoon, a majority was formed in favor of upholding last year’s decision. All indications suggest that the outcome will once again be unanimous, as no dissenting votes have been recorded."

 

Edited August 16 by Pionner_who

[Pionner_who]

Beloved brothers, after 10 days of suspense, we have finally reached the final decision. Just like last year, we had all the votes in favor! So, unanimously, the 2024 decision has been upheld.

 

 

 

[Brandon]

Is there any protection for those under 18 who agree with their parents on not wanting blood? I think it’s sometimes called “mature minors” laws around health choices 

[Pionner_who]

9 hours ago, Brandon said:

Existe alguma proteção para menores de 18 anos que concordam com os pais em não querer sangue? Acho que às vezes se chama leis para "menores maduros" em relação a escolhas de saúde. 

 

Before the trial, there was the issue of parental authority over the child. In other words, decisions for the child were made by the State. And generally, the decision favored the transfusion. Now, it remains the same… However, the ruling stated that the State should only be called upon when all alternatives have already been tried and the problem is still not resolved. In the meantime, parents may suggest alternatives, and doctors must consider them as long as they are based on science.

 

[Pionner_who]

This announcement was read in the congregations in Brazil:

Update on the Supreme Federal Court ruling: As the brothers know, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) issued a historic decision establishing that adult patients have the right to refuse blood transfusions and choose medical treatments without the use of blood, including within the public health system. After this decision was made, the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) filed an appeal in court, challenging the STF’s decision. This appeal was judged between August 8 and 18 of this year.

We are pleased to inform you that the STF unanimously rejected the appeal filed by the Federal Council of Medicine. In the ruling, the justices clarified that even in situations where an adult is at risk, doctors have the duty to use all methods compatible with the patient’s beliefs. This guarantees respect for the position of Jehovah’s Witness patients, who do not accept the use of blood. In situations where the patient is unable to express himself, the decision reaffirmed that the doctor must respect what the patient left in writing. This shows the importance of keeping our Advance Medical Directive (DPA) card properly filled out.

We are very grateful to our God, Jehovah, for this legal victory. We feel like the psalmist, who wrote: “Jehovah has done great things for us, and we are filled with joy.” — Psalm 126:3.

 

[Bernadette]

What a wonderful outcome.  

Thank you Jehovah 🙏💕

[Pionner_who]

 

The congregations in Brazil received this announcement during the midweek and weekend meetings this week:

New Trial in the Federal Supreme Court (STF): As the brothers are aware, during the past year, Jehovah’s people in Brazil obtained significant victories in the Federal Supreme Court regarding our right to refuse blood transfusions. We would like to clarify that, at present, we have three cases in progress, two of which were judged on September 25 of last year.

2. On that occasion, the STF decided unanimously that competent adult patients have the right to refuse treatments involving blood transfusions, and the right to receive treatment in the public health system (SUS) without the use of blood. As was recently announced, on August 18 of this year, an appeal questioning certain aspects of that decision was judged, and the STF ruled in our favor. We have no doubt that Jehovah’s powerful hand was with us during these trials!

3. Now, we would like to inform you that a new trial will soon begin. The STF will judge whether, in emergency cases, certain regulations that lead doctors to believe they are obliged to administer transfusions to Jehovah’s Witness patients are still valid. The main issue involved in this trial is to provide a correct interpretation of these regulations. For this reason, we understand that this decision is even more important than the last two. The trial will take place between August 29 and September 5 in a virtual format, and it will not be broadcast.

4. Just as was done before, we ask that you continue praying for the brothers involved and that Jehovah’s will be done. It is thrilling to see how Jehovah has made his great name known in the highest court of the country! As the apostle Paul confidently declared, we are certain that nothing and no one can frustrate the purposes of our God: “If God is for us, who will be against us?” (Rom. 8:31) May this occasion serve to strengthen our confidence in Jehovah even more, and so that his name may be made known everywhere.

Let us pray to Jehovah that we may have the third victory within a year. In this case, we already have one vote in our favor—the vote of the rapporteur.

---

 

[Doug]

2 hours ago, Pionner_who said:

 

2. Now, we would like to inform you that a new trial will soon begin. The STF will judge whether, in emergency cases, certain regulations that lead doctors to believe they are obliged to administer transfusions to Jehovah’s Witness patients are still valid. The main issue involved in this trial is to provide a correct interpretation of these regulations. For this reason, we understand that this decision is even more important than the last two. The trial will take place between August 29 and September 5 in a virtual format, and it will not be broadcast.

---

 

 

It sounds like the doctors and hospital administrators may be concerned about liability, or malpractice lawsuits, resulting from the patient's refusal of blood?

There's nothing in our Advance Health Care Directive about holding doctor's harmless providing that we received competent medical care otherwise.

 

From our position, there are NO scenarios, not even emergency cases, where our decision to refuse blood can be overruled.

 

It seems this detail would have been addressed in the original trial.  Well, they only allowed one week for this trial. By now, the ministers / judges must be very well versed on our position.

[Pionner_who]

2 hours ago, Doug said:

 

Parece que os médicos e administradores do hospital podem estar preocupados com a responsabilidade ou ações judiciais por negligência médica resultantes da recusa do paciente em doar sangue?

Não há nada em nossa Diretiva Antecipada de Assistência à Saúde que isente os médicos de responsabilidade, desde que tenhamos recebido cuidados médicos competentes.

 

Da nossa posição, NÃO há cenários, nem mesmo casos de emergência, em que nossa decisão de recusar sangue possa ser anulada.

 

Parece que esse detalhe teria sido abordado no julgamento original. Bem, eles concederam apenas uma semana para este julgamento. A esta altura, os ministros/juízes já devem estar bem cientes da nossa posição.

That is exactly the issue. Even though Brazilian law grants the right to religious belief, the resolutions of the Medical Council state that in cases of emergency, a Jehovah’s Witness patient may be transfused, even if physical force or police force is used. Because of this, there have already been cases in which brothers were tied down or subjected to physical and even police force. The purpose of this trial is for such practices to be declared unconstitutional.
 

 

[grain of mustard]

16 hours ago, Pionner_who said:

 

As congregações no Brasil receberam este anúncio durante as reuniões de meio de semana e de fim de semana desta semana:

Novo julgamento no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF): Como é do conhecimento dos irmãos, no último ano, o povo de Jeová no Brasil obteve vitórias significativas no Supremo Tribunal Federal em relação ao nosso direito de recusar transfusões de sangue. Gostaríamos de esclarecer que, atualmente, temos três processos em andamento, dois dos quais foram julgados em 25 de setembro do ano passado.

2. Naquela ocasião, o STF decidiu, por unanimidade, que pacientes adultos capazes têm o direito de recusar tratamentos que envolvam transfusões de sangue e o direito de receber tratamento no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) sem o uso de sangue. Como anunciado recentemente, em 18 de agosto deste ano, um recurso questionando certos aspectos dessa decisão foi julgado, e o STF decidiu a nosso favor. Não temos dúvidas de que a mão poderosa de Jeová esteve conosco durante esses julgamentos!

3. Agora, gostaríamos de informar que um novo julgamento terá início em breve. O STF julgará se, em casos de emergência, certas normas que levam médicos a acreditarem que são obrigados a administrar transfusões em pacientes Testemunhas de Jeová ainda são válidas. A principal questão envolvida neste julgamento é fornecer uma interpretação correta dessas normas. Por isso, entendemos que esta decisão é ainda mais importante do que as duas anteriores. O julgamento ocorrerá entre 29 de agosto e 5 de setembro, em formato virtual, e não será transmitido.

4. Assim como fizemos antes, pedimos que continuem orando pelos irmãos envolvidos e para que a vontade de Jeová seja feita. É emocionante ver como Jeová tornou seu grande nome conhecido na mais alta corte do país! Como o apóstolo Paulo declarou com confiança, temos certeza de que nada nem ninguém pode frustrar os propósitos do nosso Deus: “Se Deus é por nós, quem será contra nós?” (Rom. 8:31) Que esta ocasião sirva para fortalecer ainda mais a nossa confiança em Jeová, e para que seu nome seja conhecido em todos os lugares.

Oremos a Jeová para que tenhamos a terceira vitória em um ano. Neste caso, já temos um voto a nosso favor — o voto do relator.

---

 

Do you have the process number so I can follow it?