The Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal for blood transfusions: the jurisprudence and the medico-legal debate in Italy.

The Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) patient's refusal of a lifesaving transfusion creates a conflict for the physician. In Italy, we are met with a great disparity of behaviour among physicians; the JW's eventual refusal for transfusional therapy often necessitates the physician's recourse to the court. Jurisprudence has thus arrived at an analysis of the juridical value of so-called advance directives. The analysis demonstrates a noteworthy argumentative coherence and reflects a specific doctrinaire development in transfusional therapy. In fact, in Italy most of medicolegal doctrine recognizes, in the JW's blood refusal, the physician's limited position whereby, it seems, he or she must submit legally to an expressed therapeutical dissent even when the patient is in a condition of incompetence and is no longer capable of expressing his or her refusal, or else must risk an indiscriminate violation of the patient's right to religious freedom and choice. According to the Constitutional Chart, the physician's duty to respect the JW's refusal of blood transfusions is absolute in order to avoid any treatment that is in conflict with the religious faith that each patient is free to profess.