The case of Pindo Mulla v Spain (2024) involved a decision made by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to conducting medical treatment for Pindo Mulla (PM). PM was a Jehovah’s Witness who had expressly confirmed that she could not accept blood transfusions due to the moral stance outlined with her religious beliefs.

PM had been aware of her condition prior to the required surgery and drew up several documents refusing any type of blood transfusion if it was deemed by medical professionals that she required the same. In 2018, she required further emergency surgery at La Paz Hospital in Madrid, at which point medical professionals sought permission from a judge to transfuse her if necessary, whilst being aware that she had “verbally expressed her rejection of all types of treatment”. Permission was given “to treat the patient arriving from Soria, whose identity is unknown for the moment, with the medical or surgical measures necessary to safeguard her life and physical integrity”, and as a result PM was transfused during the procedure. She then attempted to sue in domestic Courts in Spain, but was unsuccessful in her action.

PM proceeded to argue that her objection to the transfusions had been overridden in contravention of Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion).

Conclusion:

The Court found that the decision to proceed with the medical treatment, against PM’s wishes, had occurred due to a decision-making process affected by the omission of essential information about the documenting of these wishes. The Court was satisfied that the actions of the medical professionals had been motivated by an overriding concern to ensure that Pindo Mulla was treated effectively, but that overall it was evident that her rights under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention had in fact been violated, and that the domestic system had not responded appropriately to PM’s complaints regarding the overruling of her documented wishes.