CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ

“INTERFERENCE WITH A MINOR’S PHYSICAL INTEGRITY: CZECH CASES …

3.2 Prenatal diagnosis, Abortion, and Protestantism in the Czech Republic The Czech legislation on abortion is considered to be quite liberal, especially in comparison to the Polish one, as in the Czech Republic, a pregnant woman older than 16 can apply for abortion out of personal reasons (i.e., besides health reasons) till the end of the 12 th week of pregnancy. After the 12 th week an abortion may be performed if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered, a severe impairment of the foetus has been established, or the foetus is not viable. Out of genetic reasons, the abortion could be performed until the end of 24 th week. 32 Therefore, a devoted Protestant couple was being heavily “recommended” 33 by their doctors to undergo abortion in 2007/2008, after the prenatal check had shown a severe congenital impairment (Edwards syndrome) of the foetus. The doctors were not able to understand why the parents had gone through (costly) prenatal diagnosis if the purpose of this procedure was to prevent that a disabled child was born, if for these parents due to their religious beliefs an abortion had never been an option. After the child was born, severely disabled, some of the attending healthcare workers remained judgemental. 34 3.3 Jehovah’s Witness and Conscientious Objections of Department of Anaesthesiology and Resuscitation at a Czech University Hospital Recently, I came across a case of a competent adult Jehovah’s Witness being denied a narcosis by all members of the Department of anaesthesiology and resuscitation at one of the Czech University Hospitals. The reason for declining the patient was that the patient had signed a previously expressed wish through which she had refused to receive blood during the surgery (the risk that during the surgery the anaesthesiologists would need to provide the patient with blood was estimated by the very same anaesthesiologists to be around 1%, i.e., extremely low). Due to the position of the anaesthesiologists and the somewhat reluctant approach of the University Hospital regarding a proper referral, the patient got the surgery at a different hospital with a substantial delay, resulting in health complications, such as e.g., nephrostomy. The reasoning of the University Hospital’s lawyers was that if the patient’s wish had been followed the doctors (and the University Hospital) could have faced a prosecution for committing a murder (which, considering the fact that there is a right to write down a previously expressed wish under S. 36 of the Czech Act on Healthcare Services, is, at least, questionable. Maybe even more alarmingly, the Czech Medical Chamber who was afterwards deciding upon the patient’s complaint filed against the anaesthesiologists, showed a great empathy for the doctors whilst being hypercritical towards the patient and her preferences. 35 This case clearly challenges the general assumption of the Czech medical lawyers that when it comes to competent adults and their right to refuse a potentially life-saving treatment (as opposed to minors), Czech society does acknowledge this right and accepts the decision easily. In addition and very likely even more importantly, it raises a question whether the law is adequately set up to obligate the healthcare provider to provide the desired treatment to which the patient is legally entitled to despite the healthcare workers’ conscientious objection 32 Implementing legislation to the Act No. 66/1986 Sb., on Artificial Abortion, No. 75/1986 Sb., S. 2. 33 Or more accurately: The couple was being forced to abortion. 34 The story of the family was recorded in a documentary called Zachraňte Edwardse in 2010. 35 Case No. 20/70-001/0789.

291