Supreme Court has 2 votes to uphold decision that allows Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions

The Supreme Federal Court has two votes to reject an appeal by the Federal Council of Medicine seeking to overturn the court's ruling on blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses . The analysis of the Federal Council of Medicine's motion for clarification is taking place in a virtual plenary session and is expected to be completed on August 18.

In September of last year, the Supreme Federal Court ruled that, for religious reasons, believers in this segment have the right to refuse medical treatments involving blood transfusions. The justices also unanimously ruled that people who refuse certain medical procedures because of their religion have the right to alternative treatments already available through the Unified Health System (SUS), including outside their city of residence, if necessary.

The ruling was reached in two separate lawsuits. In the first, the Union appealed a decision that ordered it to pay for all medical and healthcare coverage for a total joint replacement surgery in another state for the patient, since the procedure without the use of blood transfusions is not offered in Amazonas.

The second case concerns a patient who was referred to Santa Casa de Maceió (AL) for aortic valve replacement surgery. The procedure was rejected after she refused to sign a consent form for possible blood transfusions during the procedure. It was in this case that the CFM filed the appeal.

In the document, the entity requests that the STF complement the thesis established in the judgment to contemplate cases of situations of imminent risk to life, when there is no time to refer the patient to another professional, and in scenarios where obtaining "free and informed consent" becomes unfeasible given the situation in which the patient arrives at the hospital.

The CFM argues that, without these clarifications, "professionals may be exposed to lawsuits even if they act in accordance with technical and ethical rigor." Because the ruling had widespread repercussions, the Supreme Federal Court's understanding serves as a benchmark for all decisions regarding blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses in the Brazilian judiciary.

In his statement, rapporteur Gilmar Mendes voted to reject the appeal. He argued that the entity lacked standing to file the objections because it was "not part of the procedural relationship."

Furthermore, the judge also pointed out that the issues raised by the Council are already addressed by the current thesis. "In situations where the patient's life is at risk, the healthcare professional must act with zeal, adopting all available techniques and procedures compatible with the patient's professed beliefs," Mendes emphasized, in a vote supported by Justice Cármen Lúcia .