6 November 2024 | Say Sorry
The ‘blood’ case before the European Court of Human Rights concerns a member of the religious community of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who was admitted to hospital as an emergency patient and was given a blood transfusion, despite having previously stated his refusal of this procedure, a principle which was part of his religious beliefs.
The applicants were Lilian Elisabeth Lindholm, currently living in Denmark; and the estate of her late husband, Leif Ingolf Lindholm. They are/were both Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Ms Lindholm’s husband died on 21 October 2014; he had spent the previous month in hospital after a two-metre fall through a roof, first disoriented and then unconscious. The case concerns a blood transfusion administered to him, despite his carrying a “blood-refusal card” at the time of the accident.
Ms Lindholm unsuccessfully brought legal proceedings to complain that the blood transfusion had been against her husband’s will. In 2022 the Supreme Court found in particular that doctors had avoided giving Mr Lindholm blood until they had considered it necessary to save his life; and, that there had been a legal basis for that decision in national law, which provided that a patient’s refusal of a blood transfusion had to be “current and informed”.
The applicants complain that the Supreme Court judgment finding the blood transfusion lawful, despite Mr Lindholm’s previously stated refusal of the procedure on account of his religious beliefs, was in violation of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In a Judgment dated 5 November 2024, the European Court of Human Rights determined that there was “no violation of Article 8 read in the light of Article 9”.
In its Judgment, the ECHR concluded that “the reasons relied upon by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 1 February 2022 … were both relevant and sufficient to establish that the interference complained about can be regarded as having been “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate to the aims pursued, namely the protection of health, and that the authorities of the respondent State acted within their margin of appreciation.”
Download Judgment (ECHR 2024) – pdf
Say Sorry
__________________________________________________________________________________
This article was produced in conjunction with JW News and JW Leaks.
Please support Say Sorry and JW News for as little as the cost of a coffee
SaySorry.org 