Published on 30 January 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 25636/22 Lilian Elisabeth LINDHOLM and the Estate after Leif LINDHOLM against Denmark lodged on 18 May 2022 communicated on 11 January 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a blood transfusion given to a Jehovah’s Witness who was admitted to hospital, unconscious, as an emergency patient after a fall. The hospital staff were aware that the patient had previously stated that, as a Jehovah’s Witness, he did not wish to receive blood under any circumstances, regardless of whether it was to save his life. This was indicated on, among other things, a card carried by him when admitted to hospital. About one month later he passed away without ever regaining consciousness. The cause of death was not related to the blood transfusion. The applicants, that is his estate and his widow, brought compensation proceedings maintaining, inter alia , that the blood transfusion had been performed in contravention of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention.

By a judgment of 7 December 2020, the High Court found a breach of the provisions relied on.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the applicants also relied on Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 9.

By a judgment of 1 February 2022, the Supreme Court found against the applicants. Among other things it gave weight to the fact that, after the accident, the patient had not been able to express his wishes for treatment in the current medical situation. The fact that he was carrying a card showing that he did not wish to receive blood did not fulfil the requirement in Section 24(2) of the Health Act that refusal to receive blood must be made on an informed basis taking into account the current medical situation. Moreover, haematopoietic medication had been administered to the patient during his first days in hospital to accommodate his previous refusal to receive blood, and when a blood transfusion had finally been given, it had been necessary for him to survive.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the Supreme Court judgment of 1 February 2022 approving the patient’s having been given a blood transfusion although he was carrying a card stating that, as a Jehovah’s Witness, he did not wish to receive blood under any circumstances, regardless of whether it was to save his life, in breach of Articles 8, 9 or 14 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia , no. 302/02, § 134, 10 June 2010)?