The medical ethics limits and religious freedom

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the abstention of Jehovah's Witnesses from  blood transfusion, that there isn´t antinomy between the right to life and freedom of religious, due  to who always looking for alternatives ways to reconcile with their faith. In addition, have focus on  the limits of ethical medics against freedom of religious, as well as making an analysis as to the  legal validity of free and informed consent, and the advance directives of the will of such patients.  The method used is hypothetical-deductive, and the research technique employed is the  interpretation of the theme through current Brazilian legislation, doctrines, jurisprudential analysis  and the materials provided by the religious entity, Jehovah's Witnesses, and additional interviews  with people who had experiences in this theme. It is possible to analyze that there are still authors  who maintain the existence of a contrast of two socially relevant legal goods, such as life and  religious freedom. Although others have already shown that it is an apparent conflict, and that in  fact it doesn´t exist, moreover, they exalt the relevance of private autonomy in doctor-patient  relationships, manifested through informed consent, and base this relationship on the principle of  the person's human dignity. Given what is being presented, it will be possible to observe that the  ethical duty does not only imply performing a certain medical procedure, but knowing how to  respect the patient's opinion, even if his decision is based on his religious conviction, in attention to  the principle of dignity human, freedom and freedom religious, essential values for a legitimate  democratic rule of law. In addition, it is possible to reconcile the right to life and the right to  religious freedom, since scientific advances have developed alternative methods that do not use  allogeneic blood.