European Court Says Spain Violated Rights of Jehovah's Witness in Authorizing Blood Transfusion

In Case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain, (ECHR, Sept. 17, 2024), the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated by Spanish courts when they authorized a blood transfusion for a critically ill woman who, because of her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, had refused all blood transfusions. The court said in part:

181.  The Court fully appreciates that the actions taken in relation to the applicant on the day in question by the staff of both hospitals were motivated by the overriding concern to ensure the effective treatment of a patient who was under their care, in keeping with the most fundamental norm of the medical profession. It does not question their assessments regarding the severity of the applicant’s condition at the time, the urgency of the need to treat her, the medical options available in the circumstances, or that the applicant’s life was saved that day.

182.  However, the authorisation by the duty judge to proceed with whatever treatment was considered necessary resulted from a decision-making process that was affected by the omission of essential information about the documenting of the applicant’s wishes, which had been recorded in various forms and at various times in writing. Since neither the applicant nor anyone connected with her was aware of the decision taken by the duty judge, it was not possible, even in theory, to make good that omission. Neither this issue, nor the issue of her capacity to take a decision, were addressed in an adequate manner in the subsequent proceedings. In light of this, it cannot be said that the domestic system adequately responded to the applicant’s complaint that her wishes had been wrongly overruled....

183.  In the Court’s view, the shortcomings identified above ... indicate that the interference complained of was the result of a decision-making process which, as it operated in this case, did not afford sufficient respect for the applicant’s autonomy as protected by Article 8, which autonomy she wished to exercise in order to observe an important teaching of her religion.

Eight of the 17 judges dissented as to the damages awarded by the majority. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

5th Circuit: Religious Objection to Medications Must Be Considered In Forcible Medication Determination

United States v. Harris, (5th Cir., Oct. 17, 2023), involved a defendant who was charged with threatening to assault a federal judge. Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial and was involuntarily hospitalized to determine whether it was likely that he will attain competency in the foreseeable future. The government sought to involuntarily medicate defendant who, as a Jehovah's Witness, had refused for religious reasons to take medications.  Under Supreme Court precedent (Sell v. United States), one of the factors to be considered in deciding whether involuntary medication is permissible is whether important governmental interests are at stake, taking into account that special circumstances may lessen the importance of that interest.  In the case the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that said in part:

If ... secular circumstances are important enough to lessen the Government’s interest in prosecution, ... we believe religious liberty must be at least as important....

Harris’s religious beliefs, combined with his lengthy detention and his potential civil confinement, thus lessen the Government’s interests under the first Sell factor.

We hasten to emphasize the limits in today’s holding. We do not hold that religious faith constitutes a get-out-of-jail-free card. We also do not hold that all religious objections eliminate the Government’s interests under the first Sell factor. We hold only that religious liberty can constitute a “special circumstance” under Sell,,,,

Suit Challenging Jehovah's Witness Beliefs Dismissed

In Gasparoff v. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania, (D AZ, Feb. 4, 2022), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a pro se complaint which attacked the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions and asked the court "to determine if it is constitutional to use Amendment I in order to propagandize suicidal ideology under the guise of peaceful religious practice." The court said in part:

Plaintiff has no viable legal grounds to advance this case.... Federal Courts can not be arbiters of scriptural interpretation; controversies over religious principles fall outside this Court’s jurisdiction....  Furthermore, the Amended Complaint reflects that Plaintiff has no personal stake in this action, and therefore has no standing to litigate this case.

Seventh Day Adventist Can Sue Over Forced Sedation

In Snyder v. Robinson, (D ID, Dec. 1, 2021), an Idaho federal district court in its initial screening of an in forma pauperis lawsuit concluded that plaintiff, a Seventh Day Adventist, can move ahead with his allegations that a nurse injected him with drugs to sedate him, in violation of his known religious beliefs. The court also permitted him to proceed with his 4th Amendment and his 14th Amendment right to privacy and bodily integrity claims.

Story Recounts Personal Side of Court-Ordered Medical Treatment of Child

The Cleveland Plain Dealer today has a lengthy account of the personal emotions involved in a court clash between parents and doctors over the treatment of a 14-year old girl with a brain tumor.  The story details the difficult decisions involved where parents, who are Moorish-Americans, want, consistent with their religious beliefs, to use herbal treatment instead of chemotherapy on the inoperable tumor.

Arizona Appeals Court Invalidates Hotline Procedure For Overruling Parental Objections To Medical Treatment

In Glenn H. v. Hoskins, (AZ App., April 3, 2018), an Arizona state appeals court invalidated the "hot line" procedure that hospitals in Maricopa County use to obtain emergency orders to treat minors over the religious or other objections of their parents.  In the case, Jehovah's Witness parents objected to the use of blood transfusions in the treatment of their 14-year old son for bone cancer.  Apparently the boy agreed with his parents' decision.  Vacating the trial court's order authorizing medical treatment for the boy, the appeals court concluded that there are no provisions in Arizona statutes permitting courts to rule before a complaint has been filed, adding:

However well-intended the emergency hotline may be, the superior court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain ex parte oral requests in the absence of specific statutory authorization.  See Redewill v. Superior Court, 43 Ariz. 68, 81 (1934) (“A court cannot do something not authorized by law, because it may think it is ‘just as good,’ or even better than the thing which the law does sanction.”)

AP reports on the decision.

Orthodox Jews In Canada Challenge Brain Death As End-of-Life Test

According to the National Post, in the Canadian city of Toronto an Orthodox Jewish family has filed suit claiming that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms they should be able to require a hospital to continue to treat their 25-year old son who was declared brain dead.  The family says that their religious beliefs reject the concept of brain death in favor of the end of heart beat as the test.  The court ordered the patent to temporarily be kept on life support while the case is pending.

Free Exercise Claim Against Hospital Over Diet For Daughter Moves Ahead

In Dixon v. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MI, Aug. 11, 2017), a Michigan federal district court allowed parents whose daughter was ordered hospitalized for mental health treatment to proceed with several claims.  Among them is a claim that the hospital is violating the parents' free exercise rights by feeding their daughter pork with knowledge of the family's religious beliefs.

Suit Claims Disorientation From Religious Fast Treated As Mental Illness

Courthouse News Service reports this week on a lawsuit filed in Common Pleas Court in Cleveland, Ohio by a Pentecostal Christian "self-published spiritual author" who claims she was involuntarily committed to a hospital psychiatric ward when she became confused and disoriented on the 15th day of a "Biblical fast." She has sued the hospital and a doctor, claiming that he and the hospital staff "characterized [her] religious devotion as evidence of mental instability, making repeated references to her 'religious preoccupation' and noting [her] Bible reading and audible praying as evidence [of] mental illness." She seeks punitive damages for false arrest and violation of patient rights. The case is Doe v. St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, (filed 3/10/2014).

House Passes Religious Exemption To Required Health Insurance For Those Who Are Opposed To All Medical Treatment

With bipartisan support, the House of Representatives yesterday passed by voice vote and sent to the Senate H.R. 1814-- the Equitable Access to Care and Health (EACH) Act. The Hill reports on the House vote which extends an exemption (26 USC 5000A(d)(2)) currently in the Affordable Care Act that exempts members of a "recognized religious sect" whose tenets oppose accepting benefits of medical insurance. The bill passed by the House provides an exemption to individuals whose "sincerely held religious beliefs would cause the individual to object to medical health care that would be covered under such coverage." The bill is apparently intended to cover only those who hold sincere religious beliefs object to all health care supervised by physicians.  It does not require the objector to be a member of a religious group with such tenets. To obtain the exemption, an individual would be required to file a sworn statement with his or her tax return.  The exemption is lost if the individual during the year receives medical health care.

"Avoidable Consequences" Doctrine Prevents Recovery For Jehovah's Witness Death

In Braverman v. Granger, (MI App., Jan. 9, 2014), a Michigan appeals court held that the doctrine of "avoidable consequences" prevents recovery in a wrongful death medical malpractice suit brought by the personal representative of a deceased Jehovah's Witness woman who refused a blood transfusion that was needed to deal with complications from a kidney transplant.  The court rejected a test that would look to whether refusing a blood transfusion was subjectively reasonable in light of a person's religious beliefs, saying that this test would require the trier of fact  to decide either the reasonableness of a person's religion or of her decision to follow her religious beliefs in the face of death. The court held that instead "the proper inquiry is whether the blood transfusion was an objectively reasonable means to avoid or minimize damages following the person’s original injury...."

In a concurring opinion, Judge Boonstra added:

I write separately only to emphasize that our opinion should not be interpreted as reflective of any viewpoint regarding religion generally or any particular religious belief or expression. To the contrary, it is reflective of the spirit of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and its guarantee of every person’s right to freely exercise the religious beliefs and expressions of his or her choice, without governmental interference.

AP reports on the decision.

Guardian For Amish Girl's Medical Decisions Seeking To Withdraw

In Akron, Ohio, a court-appointed guardian for an 11-year old Amish girl with leukemia is seeking court approval to withdraw from the case.  AP reports that the guardian, an attorney and registered nurse, has decided to drop her attempt to force the girl to resume chemotherapy treatments since she no longer knows where the girl is and cannot monitor her condition. The girl's parents decided to stop the chemotherapy, believing that it was making her sick and would ultimately kill her.  They went into hiding with the girl after a state appeals court (see prior posting) upheld the appointment of the guardian.  The parents are treating the girl with herbs and vitamins.  Doctors at Akron Children's Hospital say that the girl's leukemia is treatable, but that she will die within a year unless chemotherapy is resumed.

Court Says Free Exercise Challenge To Blood Alcohol Test Not Clearly Raised

In In re Refusal of Milewski, 2013 Wisc. App. LEXIS 996 (WI App., Nov. 27, 2013), a Wisconsin state appeals court rejected an appeal by Victoria Milewski, a Christian Scientist,whose drivers license was suspended after she refused to take a blood alcohol test. She told officers that her religion did not allow her to permit the intrusion of a needle into her body, but officers refused to give her a urine test instead. At trial, Milewski's counsel argued that Milewski had made a reasonable objection to the blood draw.  The appeals court said:

it appears that Milewski might have been ... attempting to present a First Amendment challenge to the implied consent law.... That is, Milewski might have meant to argue that the implied consent statutory scheme ... impermissibly burdens her right to practice her religion .... I express no opinion about the potential merits of such an argument, because it has not been clearly presented in this refusal proceeding, and certainly has not been supported by legal authority. Therefore, I have no reasonable alternative but to reject it.