The Supreme Federal Tribune (STF) formed a majority to reaffirm the right to deny blood transfusions for religious reasons, rejecting appeal from the Federal Council of Medicine, which sought to reverse the decision favorable to the Jehovah Witness group.
The trial of the embargoes occurs in the Virtual Plenary, in a session scheduled to last until 11:59 pm on Monday (18). The appeal voted for the rapporteur, Minister Gilmar Mendes, and the ministers Cármen Lúcia, Alexandre de Moraes, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino, André Mendonça and Dias Toffoli.
Most will be confirmed if there is no request for a view (more analysis time) or prominent (referral to the physical plenary). The decision has general repercussion and should be observed by all courts of the country.
In September 2024, the Supreme Plenary unanimously decided that citizens have the right to refuse medical procedures for religious reasons. This is the case, for example, of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose faith does not allow blood transfusions.
“The refusal to treat health for religious reasons is conditioned to the unambiguous, free, informed and enlightened decision of the patient, including when conveyed through early directive,” says the thesis established at the time.
The winning thesis also established the possibility of performing an alternative procedure, without blood transfusion, “if there is a technical-scientific viability of success, consent of the medical team with their realization and unequivocal, free, informed and enlightened decision.”
The CFM appealed the decision alleging that there are omissions to the extent, as the Supreme would not have clarified what to do in scenarios in which the patient’s enlightened consent would not be possible, or in cases with risk of imminent death.
Two concrete cases served as the basis for the decision. One concerned a woman from Maceió who refused to transfusion to perform heart surgery. The other dealt with an Amazon patient who required the cost of the union of total arthroplasty surgery in another state, where it could be done without blood transfusion.
In the vote followed by the majority, in which he rejected the CFM appeal, the rapporteur Gilmar Mendes wrote that, contrary to the argument, the omission points were raised and clarified in the trial.
“In situations where the patient’s life is at risk, the health professional should work with zeal, adopting all techniques and procedures available and compatible with the patient’s professed belief,” said the minister.
