Hospital refuses surgery on JW patient - Switzerland

by TheWonderofYou 14 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • jookbeard

    brilliant stand by the hospital, lets hope more follow suit

  • TheWonderofYou

    Update : Lausanne federal court decided in March that hospital had good reasons not to risk that JW died. It was no discrimination to shun and avoid treatment of a JW patient who wanted bloodless therapy in a private clinics and suffered herniation. "Flashed off"

  • TheWonderofYou

    Quote SFR

    The man wanted to operate in a hospital in Bern because of a gang disc incident. The clinic turned him down because he did not allow him to be treated with blood transfusion if necessary. The person concerned claimed that he felt humiliated and traumatized. He subsequently sued the clinic for discrimination.

    The Federal Court has now dismissed the plaintiff. Among other things, the Lausanne judges state in their explanatory statement that a clinic "with good reason" does not want to run the risk of bleeding a patient during the operation. In order to present a clear line and to be able to rule out any appearance of unequal treatment or discrimination, the clinic relies on a generally abstract formulated consent.

    So the man has a right to medical treatment and respect for his beliefs. The doctors, however, have a right to rescue their patients in an emergency, according to the Federal Supreme Court. At the same time, the operation of disc herniation was not vital and the man could then be operated on in another clinic. Therefore he was not discriminated.

  • steve2

    JWs find this hard to stomach because it shows there are often two sides to an argument.

  • TheWonderofYou

    The Supreme courts refers in the text to the case "JW of Moscow and RUssia" at the Eurpean court for humen rights

    2.6. reads

    2.6. Kollisionen im Gesundheitswesen mit der Autonomie des Bürgers können in den Anwendungsbereich von Art. 8 EMRK fallen. Den Staat trifft eine positive Schutzpflicht. Art. 14 EMRK spielt hier eine subsidiäre Rolle (WILLIAM A. SCHABAS, The European Convention on Human Rigths, 2015/2017, S. 371, 407). Der zur Neutralität verpflichtete Staat hat ferner vernünftige und angemessene Massnahmen zur Sicherung der Rechte aus Art. 9 EMRK zu treffen (a.a.O., S. 428 f.). Verwiesen werden kann hierzu auf die Rechtsprechung des EGMR im Urteil in Sachen Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow and others v. Russia vom 10. Juni 2010, Verfahren 302/02, besonders Ziff. 133-136) :
    "It ist generally known that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood, which is sacred to God, and that this prohibition extends to transfusion of any blood or blood components that are not the patient's own. The religious prohibition permits of no exceptions and is applicable even in cases where a blood transfusion is deemed to be necessary in the best clinical judgement to avoid irreparable damage to the patient's health or even to save his or her life" (Ziff. 133). - "The Court recognises that the refusal of potentially life-saving medical treatment on religious grounds is a problem of considerable legal complexity, involving as it does a conflict between the State's interest in protecting the lives and health of its citizens and the individual's right to personal autonomy in the sphere of physical integrity and religious beliefs" (Ziff. 134). - "In the sphere of medical assistance, even where the refusal to accept a particular treatment might lead to a fatal outcome, the imposition of medical treatment without the consent of a mentally competent adult patient would interfere with his or her right to physical integrity and impinge on the rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention" (Ziff. 135) - "The freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, is vital to the principles of self-determination and personal autonomy. A competent adult patient is free to decide, for instance, whether or not to undergo surgery or treatment or, by the same token, to have a blood transfusion. However, for this freedom to be meaningful, patients must have the right to make choices that accord with their own views and values, regardless of how irrational, unwise or imprudent such choices may appear to others" (Ziff. 136).
    Der Beschwerdeführer konnte sich auf sein Selbstbestimmungsrecht berufen und die angebotene Behandlung in der Klinik ablehnen ("the freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment") und der angebotenen Alternative im Spital zustimmen ("the freedom [...] to select an alternative form of treatment"). Der Facharzt, sein eigener Arzt und Chirurg, wies ihn unverzüglich in ein Spital mit entsprechendem Angebot ein und operierte ihn nach dem Behandlungswunsch. Die Leistung wurde, wie die Vorinstanz feststellt, vollumfänglich und termingerecht erbracht. Somit ist nicht zu erkennen, inwiefern der Beschwerdeführer eine Verletzung von Art. 8, 9 und 14 EMRK geltend machen will. Ebenso wenig ist eine Verletzung einer "positive obligation" des Staates ersichtlich (Urteil 2C_613/2015 vom 7. März 2017 E. 5.3 in fine). Die gewünschte Behandlung wurde im öffentlichen Spital effektiv komplikationslos durchgeführt. Auch der Rechtsweg zur Geltendmachung seiner Ansprüche ist ihm nicht verwehrt worden.

Share this