Daughter of Jehovah's Witness Who Received Blood Transfusion Against Her Will Will Be Compensated.

[Pionner_who]

The 5th Chamber of Public Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo has ordered the Municipality of Taubaté to compensate, for indirect moral damages, the daughter of a Jehovah's Witness who received a blood transfusion against her will before passing away. The compensation was set at R$ 35,000.

According to the case files, the plaintiff’s mother, who was a Jehovah's Witness, was diagnosed with leukemia and was advised to undergo blood transfusion treatment after presenting with chronic anemia. The woman refused the procedure, stating that it went against her faith, and opted for alternative methods. However, after her condition worsened, she was sedated, and the medical team performed the transfusion, claiming it was the only treatment option. Sometime later, the patient passed away.

According to Judge Maria Laura Tavares, the rapporteur for the appeal, the refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses is a complex ethical-legal dilemma that pits two fundamental rights against each other: the right to life and health on one hand, and the right to religious freedom and patient autonomy on the other.

In the case under review, the judge ruled that the fundamental rights of the plaintiff's mother were violated, as she was a "capable person who expressed her will not to receive a blood transfusion freely and informedly, in a situation that did not constitute an emergency, for the treatment of diseases that she fully understood and accepted, including the risks to her life, while she also accepted and received alternative treatments that sought to preserve her life."

"The indirect damages suffered by the plaintiff are immaterial, as they affected values that were very significant to her, as well as to her mother, with emotional and psychological distress. There was a breach of the rules stemming from the constitutional and infraconstitutional legal order, and above all, from international norms and commitments, giving rise to the State's duty to compensate," she emphasized.

Judges Heloísa Mimessi and Fermino Magnani Filho completed the judgment. The vote was unanimous.

 

News from the website

https://www.tjsp.jus.br/Noticias/Noticia?codigoNoticia=102193&pagina=1

[Dages]

18 minutes ago, Nathansantos said:

The vote was unanimous.

Nice !
Given the current context in Brazil, with the JW and Court, is it going to have an effect?

[Pionner_who]

10 minutes ago, Dages said:

Legal!
Dado o contexto atual no Brasil, com as TJ e o Tribunal, isso vai surtir efeito?

In lower courts, it is already well-established that our brothers have the right to decide which treatment they will accept, as long as they are minors and capable. So, decisions like this prove that the decisions of our brothers must be respected! These rulings also serve as a basis for understanding how the Supreme Court will decide. This also sets a precedent, as in similar cases, judges tend to look at how their colleagues ruled.

[Pionner_who]

"It is very sad to know that our sister, besides being sedated—which Human Rights categorize as torture—passed away due to a blood transfusion, which likely caused some complication. But it's good that justice was served and she is certainly in Jehovah's memory."

[Roberto Flores]

Let's pray for that family of Jehovah's servants

[Doug]

4 hours ago, Nathansantos said:

 

According to Judge Maria Laura Tavares, the rapporteur for the appeal, the refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses is a complex ethical-legal dilemma that pits two fundamental rights against each other: the right to life and health on one hand, and the right to religious freedom and patient autonomy on the other.

 

 

Uh  .   .   No.   Maybe something is lost in translation?

 

The patient is entitled to personal (mental - emotional - physical) autonomy,  religious freedom, and  the right to life and health.

 

It would be more correct to say that the ethical-legal dilemma pits the patients autonomy against the legal establishment and the For Profit medical industry.

[Foxes53]

Notice a big news story from Britain where many years ago people died from receiving infected blood.

Blood transfusions have no 100% guarantees.

 

Infected blood compensation payouts on the way (bbc.com)

[Mike047]

9 hours ago, Foxes53 said:

Notice a big news story from Britain where many years ago people died from receiving infected blood.

Blood transfusions have no 100% guarantees.

Yes, this and the Post Office sandal have been headline news here for some time

[Pionner_who]

17 hours ago, Doug said:

17 hours ago, Doug said:

It would be more correct to say that the ethical-legal dilemma pits the patients autonomy against the legal establishment and the For Profit medical industry.

 

I understand your point of view, and it really makes sense. However, the translation is correct. I will try to explain what the Judge meant.

In Brazil, our constitution contains articles that sometimes cause confusion in the judiciary when ruling on cases involving our brothers. The first is Article 5 of the constitution, which states:

'All persons are equal before the law, without distinction of any kind, ensuring to Brazilians and foreign residents in the country the inviolability of the right to life, liberty, equality, security, and property.'

If you notice, when it speaks of the inviolability of the right to life, it means that it is the duty of the Brazilian State to ensure that its citizens do not die. And this is where the ethical-judicial issue comes in. Should a person be tortured to comply with a law? Curiously, in the same Article 5, clause 6, the constitution says:

'Freedom of conscience and belief is inviolable, ensuring the free exercise of religious worship and guaranteeing, in accordance with the law, the protection of places of worship and their liturgies.'

So, based on the Constitution, what happened in Brazil was that the Federal Council of Medicine issued a regulation saying:

'If there is imminent danger to life, the doctor will perform a blood transfusion, regardless of the patient's or their guardian's consent.'

As a result, for many years, our brothers were victims of torture for not accepting blood transfusions (they were sedated, some were tied to the bed, others were restrained by nurses, etc.). All of this to ensure compliance with the constitutional article regarding the inviolability of life. However, in recent times, jurists have begun to understand that prolonging life through torture does not fulfill the intention of Article 5. 
Another point worth mentioning is that in Brazil, although there are private health plans and doctors, the State has constitutional obligations to provide medical care to citizens. That is why we have the SUS (Unified Health System), which provides free care to 190 million Brazilians, 80% of the population. And those who opt for private services are often reimbursed by income tax for the amount spent on medical care, as it is the State's obligation to provide it to the population."

[Mike047]

18 hours ago, Mike047 said:

Yes, this and the Post Office sandal have been headline news here for some time

It's a scandal that they were such big sandals