Obowiązek ochrony życia a prawo do odmowy leczenia w kontekście wolności religijnej świadków Jehowy i ich stanowiska względem transfuzji krwi
The obligation to protect life and the right to refuse treatment in the context of the religious freedom of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their position on blood transfusions
Author(s): Urszula NowickaSubject(s): Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Civil Law, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Canon Law / Church Law, Administrative Law
Published by: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Keywords: Świadkowie Jehowy; transfuzja krwi;Jehovah's Witnesses; blood transfusion; patient autonomy; religious freedom; refusal to consent to treatment; obligation to protect life
Summary/Abstract: Saving lives is a vital part of a doctor’s work. However, while doctors must adhere to the constitutionally defined principles of health care, they must also acknowledge the principle of patients’ rights, including the patient’s right to self-determination. This means that a doctor cannot define a course of treatment purely according to his or her own understanding as this would limit the patient’s autonomy. Thus, patients today participate in the medical decisions that concern them, and their consent is required for all medical treatments. This may give rise to difficulties in situations that require the simultaneous implementation of two principles: salus aegroti suprema lex est and voluntas aegroti suprema lex est. Patients may refuse treatment for various reasons. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they may refuse blood transfusions due to their religious beliefs. This paper considers the basis for refusal to consent to treatment and draws on legal solutions in an attempt to address the issue, Polish jurisprudence and opinions expressed by scholars. The author concludes that nobody has the right to demand that a patient explain his or her decision to refuse treatment, even when that stance is irrational from a medical point of view. Instead, the patient’s decision must be freely made and not forced or manipulated. It makes no difference whether this choice relates to a current (specific) situation or to a future scenario (pro futuro statements); however, the decision must relate to the person who makes it—they must be an adult and not incapacitated. The issue of consent must be resolved quite differently when it concerns the treatment of a child, that is, a person who cannot make informed decisions for themselves, but on whose behalf the parents will normally decide. Decisions affecting the life and death of a child exceed the limits of parental authority, and in such circumstances, parental refusal of a child’s treatment should be challenged.
Journal: Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego
- Issue Year: 2024
- Issue No: 27
- Page Range: 187-201
- Page Count: 15
- Language: Polish