An Ecuadorian woman residing in Spain, Rosa Edelmira Pindo Mulla, who identifies as a Jehovah’s Witness, has taken legal action against Spain in the European Court of Human Rights. She alleges that the country violated her rights by administering a blood transfusion during surgery against her explicit refusal, citing her nationality and religious beliefs as factors contributing to what she perceives as “medical paternalism.”
Also Read: 2024 election: I will contest as an independent candidate – Cheddar
In 2017, after medical examinations, the 53-year-old was advised to undergo surgery. Prior to the 2018 procedure, she filled out three documents—a advance directive, a long-term power of attorney, and an informed consent form—explicitly stating her refusal to receive any blood transfusion due to her Jehovah’s Witness beliefs.
Despite her clear instructions, Pindo Mulla experienced a life-threatening hemorrhage during surgery and received a blood transfusion. Since then, she has sought justice, initially in a Madrid court and the Spanish Constitutional Court, both of which dismissed her case. In March 2020, she filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights.
The controversial case, attracting attention for its ethical complexities, prompted varied opinions. Some argue that the woman’s stance toward those who saved her life, even against her will, is wrong. Others contend that individuals’ extreme wishes should be respected, provided they don’t harm others.
“The situation demanded a very rapid response,” insisted Nicolas Martínez, representative of the Spanish government, but Rosa’s lawyers claimed that she was a victim.
Also Read: UCC appoints first visually impaired law lecturer
“A South American immigrant who speaks Spanish with an accent, and a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are often the subject of prejudice and stereotypes, Pindo Mulla was an easy target for this medical paternalism,” the woman’s lawyers said, adding that all she wanted was “to be treated in accordance with her conscience”.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights is currently deliberating on the case, with a verdict expected in the coming months.
