RECUSA NECESSÁRIA DE TRANSFUSÃO DE SANGUE POR MOTIVO RELIGIOSO, TESTEMUNHA DE JEOVÁ: direito à vida versus direito à liberdade religiosa

Abstract

Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to transfuse blood due to religious conviction puts two fundamental principles in conflict, the right to life and the right to freedom of religion. The present work makes an effort to reconstruct knowledge about the right to refuse blood transfusion, seeking to contribute to the understanding of certain parameters that guided the religious conviction of people who follow religion and legal foundations. Using the critical-methodological method, we seek to follow the guidelines of Miracy Gustin and Maria Teresa Dias. It starts with the dignity of the human person and how important it is for a democratic state, thus enabling the individual to have a dignified life, and two fundamental rights are discussed, the right to life and religion. And when these two fundamental rights collide, how to choose a principle if everyone is on the same level, how to consider whether there is no fundamental right superior to another. In the course of the work, the individual's autonomy is discussed from the point of view of several authors and he discusses who Jehovah's Witnesses are and why they do not accept blood. And, finally, four judgments are analyzed that deal with the refusal of the blood transfusion of Jehovah's Witnesses, two with a position in favor of the refusal and two forcing to transfuse blood against their will.