Reflections on the Judgment of the Court of Cassation, Civil Section III, No. 515 of 2020: Refusal of Transfusion and Civil Liability
The judgment No. 515 of 2020 by the Court of Cassation addresses a complex case of civil liability related to a road accident and the refusal of a life-saving medical treatment. The subject of discussion is the causal link between the driving behavior of an individual and the subsequent death of the victim, who had refused to receive a blood transfusion for religious reasons. This judgment offers significant insights into responsibility and patient self-determination.
The Case and Previous Decisions
The context of the judgment revolves around a fatal road accident that occurred in 1993. D.L.U., the victim, had been involved in an accident and subsequently died in the hospital, where he had refused to receive a blood transfusion. The family sought compensation for damages, arguing that the death was directly attributable to the reckless behavior of the driver of the vehicle involved.
The Court of Rome initially recognized the exclusive responsibility of the driver, but the Court of Appeal later deemed that the refusal of the transfusion had impacted the victim's chances of survival, introducing the concept of shared responsibility.
The Court of Appeal ruled that both the driving behavior of the liable party and the refusal of the transfusion had contributed to the event of death.
The Causal Link and the Refusal of Transfusion
A central aspect of the judgment is how the Court interpreted the causal link. The Court applied the principle of voluntary exposure to risk, arguing that D.L.U. had voluntarily exposed himself to the risks associated with road traffic, being aware that in the event of an accident he might require a transfusion. This reasoning led to a reduction in the liability of the damaging party.
- The Court assessed that the chances of survival, had the transfusion been performed, were between 50 and 65%.
- The decision raised questions about the legitimacy of penalizing a personal and religious choice.
Conclusions: Self-Determination and Responsibility
The judgment No. 515 of 2020 highlights a conflict between the right to patient self-determination and civil liability. The Court reaffirmed D.L.U.'s right to refuse medical treatment; however, it also introduced an element of shared responsibility. This decision raises questions about the legitimacy of considering a refusal that may lead to fatal consequences.
In conclusion, the judgment underscores the difficulty of balancing individual rights with civil responsibilities, a topic of increasing relevance in the current legal context.
