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.
