Jehovah’s Witness case highlights religious freedom versus medical obligation in Denmark

A 67-year-old Jehovah’s Witness, Leif Lindholm, died in October 2014 after receiving a blood transfusion at Odense University Hospital, despite having a blood card in his possession that indicated his refusal for religious reasons. This incident led to a significant legal battle centered on the conflict between the right to religious freedom and the medical obligation to save lives.

Lindholm’s widow, Lillian Lindholm, brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that her husband’s rights to private and family life and religious freedom were violated. The court ruled that the actions of the doctors did not infringe upon these rights, which left Lillian Lindholm upset and confused by the judgment.

Klaus Peder Kristensen, chairman of the Danish Medical Association’s Ethics Committee, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, affirming that adhering to the law does not violate religious freedom. This decision upheld a previous ruling by the Danish Supreme Court in 2022, which supported the medical professionals’ actions within the framework of health law.

The case highlighted articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which pertain to the right to respect for private and family life and the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The court noted that Lindholm was unconscious when he was treated, thus unable to refuse the blood transfusion.

Tyge Trier, Lindholm’s defense attorney, criticized the ruling, stating it undermined an individual’s well-considered and unwavering religious decision. He remarked that although medical interventions aim to save lives, they should still respect patients’ rights to make informed choices. Trier and Lillian Lindholm are now considering whether to appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.