1. The Grand Chamber of the ECHR, by decision of 17 September 2024 (application no. 15541/20), ruled on the case of Pindo Mulla v. Spain , concerning the administration of blood transfusions to an adult patient in the context of an emergency hysterectomy and double salpingectomy, despite her explicit refusal to the treatment, expressed to the healthcare personnel and formalised in the Documento de instrucciones previas ex art. 11 Ley 41/2002 and based on religious grounds.
2. First of all, the Strasbourg Judges take care to clear up some amazon database misunderstandings. They first point out that Mrs Pindo Mulla had not opposed a generalised refusal to receive life-saving treatment, but simply to blood transfusion treatment; therefore, the reference made by the Spanish Government to the case law of the Court itself on the subject of refusal of artificial nutrition ( Lambert and Others v. France ), euthanasia ( Mortier v. Belgium ) and assisted suicide ( Pretty v. the United Kingdom ; Haas v. Switzerland ; Koch v. Germany ), as well as that relating to medical treatment for minors ( Glass v. the United Kingdom ; Parfitt v. the United Kingdom) or for persons subject to the responsibility of the State because they are confined in penitentiary ( Bogumil v. Portugal ) or psychiatric ( Aggerholm v. Denmark ) facilities who refuse medical treatment, had to be considered irrelevant. Secondly, they state that they do not want to call into question the assessment of the patient's clinical picture at the time of the surgery, as these are assessments that should be left to the judge of the merits.
3. The Court then focuses on identifying the main normative reference for the examination of the dispute, identifying it in art. 8 ECHR (right to respect for private life), albeit read in light of the subsequent art. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).