2026 Retrospective Note: The epidemiological projections established in this 2017 paper remain an important framework to tracking historical policy impacts. Notably, the March 2026 reclassification of preoperative autologous blood donation (PAD) to a matter of personal conscience represents the first systemic institutional shift targeting the very baseline numbers analyzed above, adding a critical new chapter to prospective mortality tracking and patient autonomy.
The Impact of the Watchtower Blood Prohibition
While the Watchtower has never published either actual statistics or estimates concerning the impact of the Jehovah’s Witness blood policy, it is well recognized within the medical literature that refusal of blood transfusion has, in some circumstances, been associated with preventable mortality among patients who decline transfusion because of religious conviction.1 2 3
It would have been possible for the Watch Tower Society to collect aggregate information concerning deaths associated with its blood policy, as the organization maintains detailed records regarding its membership and congregation activity. In addition, Hospital Liaison Committee (HLC) and Hospital Visit Committee (HVC) representatives are frequently involved in cases involving Jehovah’s Witness patients facing complex transfusion decisions. To date, however, the Watch Tower Society has not published aggregate mortality data related to the blood policy. The reasons for this are not publicly known. Some commentators have suggested that legal, institutional, or other considerations may have influenced this decision, although no official explanation has been provided.
Because no official mortality data are available, researchers have attempted to estimate the potential impact of the policy using published clinical studies and epidemiological extrapolation. AJWRB Medical Adviser Dr. Osamu Muramoto, M.D., and AJWRB Science Adviser Marvin Shilmer independently analyzed the available medical literature to estimate both the cumulative number of deaths that may have occurred since the introduction of the blood transfusion prohibition in 1945 and the number of deaths that may continue to occur annually under the current policy. Although these estimates necessarily rely on assumptions and should not be interpreted as observed mortality, they provide a useful framework for understanding the possible public health implications of the policy. The following sections review these published extrapolations and then update the estimates using current demographic data.
Dr. Muramoto’s Epidemiological Extrapolation
Dr. Osamu Muramoto, MD – AJWRB Medical Adviser
In 2001, Dr. Osamu Muramoto developed one of the earliest attempts to estimate the potential mortality associated with the Jehovah’s Witness blood policy using published clinical data. His analysis drew upon a study by Kitchens, Are transfusions overrated? Surgical outcome of Jehovah’s Witnesses, published in the February 1993 issue of The American Journal of Medicine.4 The study examined 1,404 “bloodless” surgical procedures performed on Jehovah’s Witness patients and reported that 1.4% of patients died with refusal of blood identified as either the primary or a contributing factor in their deaths.
Rather than applying the reported 1.4% mortality difference directly, Dr. Muramoto adopted a deliberately conservative approach. To allow for uncertainty—including the possibility that some patients might have died irrespective of transfusion status—he rounded the figure down to 1.0%. Expressed differently, his extrapolation assumed that approximately one additional death would occur for every one hundred Jehovah’s Witness patients undergoing major medical treatment in which blood transfusion would ordinarily be considered.4
At that time, the American Association of Blood Banks reported that approximately 4 million patients in the United States received blood transfusions each year from approximately 12.6 million donated units of blood. This represented roughly 15 patients per 1,000 population annually who required transfusion as part of their medical care.
The United States Jehovah’s Witness population at that time was approximately one million members. Applying the same utilization rate suggested that roughly 15,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses each year would experience medical conditions in which transfusion would ordinarily be indicated. Applying the conservative 1% excess mortality assumption yielded an estimated 150 additional deaths annually in the United States attributable to refusal of blood transfusion.
Because Jehovah’s Witnesses constitute a global religious organization, Dr. Muramoto’s approach can be extended beyond the United States by applying the same conservative methodology to worldwide publisher statistics. For additional conservatism, AJWRB excludes the years 1945–1960, although the blood transfusion prohibition was introduced in 1945. During that earlier period, adherence to the policy was not enforced through the formal disciplinary measures introduced in 1961. Excluding those years likely results in an underestimate of cumulative mortality but avoids making assumptions regarding levels of compliance during the policy’s formative years.
Using the Watch Tower Society’s published annual publisher reports, AJWRB calculated an average worldwide publisher population of 3,957,868 between 1961 and 2016. Applying Dr. Muramoto’s conservative extrapolation to this population produces an estimated 33,246 cumulative deaths over the 56-year period, representing an average of approximately 594 deaths per year, increasing to an estimated 1,220 deaths in 2016 as the global Jehovah’s Witness population expanded.
These figures should be understood as epidemiological extrapolations rather than observed mortality. They rely on published clinical data and several simplifying assumptions, including the application of United States transfusion utilization rates to an international population. At the same time, the estimates may also understate mortality in some settings, particularly in earlier decades and in lower-resource healthcare systems where access to modern blood conservation techniques has historically been limited. Because no official mortality data have been published, the true number of deaths associated with the policy cannot presently be determined. Nevertheless, Dr. Muramoto’s methodology provides a transparent and conservative framework for estimating the possible public health impact of the blood transfusion prohibition.
A Second Epidemiological Extrapolation
In 2012, Marvin Shilmer, a former Jehovah’s Witness official and AJWRB Science Adviser, independently prepared a second estimate of the potential mortality associated with the Watchtower’s blood policy.
His analysis drew upon a more recent multicenter observational study by Beliaev et al., Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic red-blood-cell transfusion in severe symptomatic anemia, published in Vox Sanguinis in 2012.5
The study compared Jehovah’s Witness patients who refused red blood cell transfusions with matched patients who accepted transfusion. Data were collected from four public hospitals in New Zealand between 1998 and 2007. Patients younger than sixteen years of age and those with advanced cancer were excluded. Among 103 Jehovah’s Witness patients with severe symptomatic anemia, 21 patients (20.4%) died, whereas mortality in the matched transfused group was 1.9%. The observed difference in mortality between the two groups was 18.5 percentage points, suggesting substantially higher mortality among patients who refused transfusion under the conditions studied.
Expressed differently, had the Jehovah’s Witness cohort experienced the same mortality rate as the matched transfused patients, approximately two deaths would have been expected instead of twenty-one during the ten-year study period. This represents approximately nineteen excess deaths, or an average of 1.9 excess deaths per year. During the same period, New Zealand averaged approximately 12,700 Jehovah’s Witness publishers, yielding an estimated annual excess mortality factor of approximately 0.015% of the publisher population. Notably, this independently derived estimate closely parallels the conservative annual mortality factor calculated by Dr. Muramoto using an entirely different dataset.
Because both Dr. Muramoto’s and Marvin Shilmer’s analyses converged on an annual excess mortality factor of approximately 0.015%, this figure provides a useful basis for estimating the possible population-level impact of the blood policy.
Using the Watch Tower Society’s published annual report, which listed 8,132,358 publishers during the 2016 service year, application of the 0.015% annual excess mortality factor yields an estimated 1,220 excess deaths worldwide during that year among Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused blood transfusion. This figure represents an epidemiological extrapolation rather than observed mortality, but it illustrates the potential magnitude of the policy’s public health impact.
Because the blood transfusion prohibition has existed since 1945, and because formal disciplinary enforcement began in 1961, AJWRB used worldwide publisher statistics beginning with 1961 to estimate cumulative mortality. Applying the same conservative annual mortality factor to the average worldwide publisher population between 1961 and 2016 produces an estimated 33,246 cumulative excess deaths over that fifty-six-year period. As with all epidemiological extrapolations, this figure should be interpreted as an estimate rather than a documented count of observed deaths.
Conservative Estimates of Blood Policy Mortality
Even these estimates are intentionally conservative. As discussed above, Dr. Muramoto reduced the 1.4% excess mortality observed in the Kitchens study to 1.0% before performing his extrapolation in order to avoid overstating the potential impact of the policy.
If the original 1.4% excess mortality reported by Kitchens were applied without this conservative adjustment, the resulting extrapolation would increase by approximately 40%, yielding an estimated 1,708 excess deaths worldwide in 2016 and approximately 46,544 cumulative excess deaths between 1961 and 2016.
Because these calculations depend upon different assumptions, they should be regarded as a range of epidemiological extrapolations rather than precise mortality counts. The true number of deaths associated with the blood policy cannot presently be determined because no official mortality data have been published. Nevertheless, the convergence of two independent analyses suggests that the cumulative public health impact of the policy may be substantial.
These estimates may surprise many readers, particularly Jehovah’s Witnesses, because relatively few individual cases receive public attention. By contrast, physicians working in trauma care, hematology, obstetrics, surgery, and critical care are familiar with the serious risks associated with profound anemia when transfusion is declined. AJWRB has documented numerous individual cases reported by patients, family members, and healthcare professionals, but these represent only a small proportion of cases that occur worldwide.
Several factors contribute to the limited public visibility of these deaths. Most occur in ordinary hospital settings rather than under circumstances that attract media attention. Privacy legislation in many countries, including the United States, appropriately protects patient confidentiality, and hospitals rarely publicize individual outcomes. Consequently, cases generally become publicly known only when:
- AJWRB members or former members voluntarily report their experiences.
- Non-Jehovah’s Witness family members choose to speak publicly or contact the media.
- Physicians or hospitals seek judicial authorization to administer blood transfusions to minors.
This distinction between individual visibility and population-level risk has important implications for informed consent. Patients frequently evaluate risk based upon personal experience and anecdotal observation rather than epidemiological data. When adverse outcomes are widely dispersed across a large international population, the underlying risk may remain largely invisible to individual members despite producing measurable mortality at the population level.
In addition to limited visibility, many Jehovah’s Witnesses have been taught that blood transfusion should be avoided not only for religious reasons but also because it presents unacceptable medical risks. For decades, Watchtower publications have emphasized the potential complications of transfusion while giving comparatively less attention to the substantial evidence supporting its life-saving role in appropriate clinical circumstances.6 This historical messaging may influence how some patients perceive the balance of risks and benefits when considering transfusion.
The following quotation from the Watchtower’s website, reproduced as it appeared on May 9, 2017, illustrates this broader emphasis:
Although many elective surgical procedures can be performed successfully using modern blood conservation techniques, the clinical situations most strongly associated with transfusion-related survival benefit are frequently those involving major trauma, severe obstetric hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and profound symptomatic anemia. In these settings, effective alternatives to red blood cell transfusion may be limited or unavailable.
Severe anemia remains one of the principal mechanisms by which refusal of transfusion can become life-threatening. When oxygen delivery falls below the metabolic requirements of vital organs, progressive tissue injury and organ failure may occur despite otherwise appropriate medical management. Patient Blood Management and blood conservation strategies have substantially improved outcomes and should be employed whenever appropriate. Nevertheless, these approaches are complementary to—not replacements for—blood transfusion in circumstances where severe anemia or hemorrhage cannot otherwise be corrected. In such cases, the availability of transfusion remains an important component of modern medical care.
Institutional Coercion and Informed Consent
The Watchtower Society teaches that its blood policy is derived from biblical commands regarding the sanctity of blood. Critics, however, have argued that the organization’s interpretation extends beyond the biblical text and relies upon specific theological inferences that remain contested among biblical scholars and former members.
Additionally, failure to comply may result in organizationally mandated shunning by other JW members, and lifelong friends who will be prohibited from eating a meal or even speaking to the non-compliant JW who does not follow the policy, or even voices disagreement, for that matter. The choice a severely anemic Jehovah’s Witness faces is grave. For some individuals, the prospect of mandated shunning and the potential loss of family, friends, and community may function as a significant source of social pressure when medical decisions involving blood transfusion are considered. From the perspective of clinical bioethics, such pressures may complicate assessments of voluntariness, one of the central components of informed consent. For clinicians unfamiliar with these organizational dynamics, it may not always be apparent that a patient’s stated refusal reflects not only sincerely held religious beliefs but also longstanding institutional, familial, and social influences. Appreciating this broader context allows physicians to better evaluate voluntariness while respecting patient autonomy and maintaining appropriate confidentiality.
1. Are transfusions overrated? Surgical outcome of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Kitchens CS. The American Journal of Medicine. 1993 Feb; p.117-119. http://www.amjmed.com/article/0002-9343(93)90171-K/pdf
2. Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic red-blood-cell transfusion in severe symptomatic anemia. Beliaev et al. VoxSanguinis 2012 July 103(1):18-24. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150804
3. Refusal of blood transfusion by Jehovah’s Witness women: a survey of current management in obstetric and gynaecological practice in the UK. Sahana Gupta et al. Blood Transfusion 2012 Oct; 10(4): 462-470. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3496240/
4. https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/risk-blood-transfusion-illegal-breach-confidentiality-addendum-reply-furul
5. https://ajwrb.org/marvin-shilmers-2012-estimate-of-jw-blood-deaths
6. https://www.ajwrb.org/clinical-resources-bioethical-guidelines-for-healthcare-providers/institutional-messaging-and-the-complication-of-informed-consent
The risks associated with blood transfusion are well recognized within modern medicine and are routinely discussed as part of the informed consent process. Over the past several decades, advances in donor screening, infectious disease testing, and transfusion practices have substantially improved the safety of the blood supply. However, some institutional publications have continued to emphasize historical or uncommon transfusion risks in ways that may not fully reflect contemporary clinical evidence.
Conversely, while avoiding transfusion may occasionally prevent transfusion-related complications, the available evidence indicates that these benefits are relatively uncommon compared with the well-documented survival benefit of transfusion for appropriately selected patients experiencing severe hemorrhage or symptomatic anemia. Consequently, incorporating transfusion-related complications into the epidemiological models presented in this article would not be expected to materially alter the overall mortality estimates. http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/risk-blood-transfusion-illegal-breach-confidentiality-addendum-reply-furul
A Note on Qualitative Patient Narratives:
The epidemiological data and statistical extrapolations presented in the text above are intended for clinical and bioethical review. However, AJWRB recognizes that behind every demographic statistic is a profound personal impact. The comment forum below is maintained as an open space for current members, former members, and their families to share their lived experiences regarding the blood prohibition. Please note that while these community-generated narratives are anecdotal and remain strictly distinct from our clinical data, we preserve them as vital qualitative perspectives on the real-world consequences of institutional medical directives.
26,156 days passed from December 30, 1945 to August 8, 2017. Imagine all the bodies of JWs murdered by the heads of the Watchtower organization over them.
This article is an eye opener. I can’t believe the ammount of people that are dying as a result of this Cult Policy. Why the people imposing this cruel policy not persecuted by our goverments?
The following is taken from The Gnostic Society Library ;Augustin; Reply to Faustus the Manichaean—-Books1–XX1—400 A.D———-Point 13 “——(in part)—For, allowing that the apostles did on that occasion require Christians to abstain from the blood of animals, and not to eat of things strangled, they seem to me to have consulted the time in choosing an easy observance that could not be burdensome to anyone,,and which the Gentiles might have in common with the Israelities–for the sake of the cornerstone, who makes one in Himself(8) while at the same time they would be reminded how the Church of all nations was pre-figured by the Ark of Noah, when God gave this command—a type which began to be fulfilled in the time of the Apostles by the accesion of the Gentiles to the faith. But since the close of that period during which the two walls of the circumcision and the un circumcision , although united in the Cornerstone, still retained some distinctive pecularities, and now that the Church has become so entirely Gentile tha none who are Outwardly Israelites are to be found in it, no Christian feels bound to abstain from thrushes or small birds because their blood has not been poured out, or hares because they are killed by a stroke on the neck without shedding their blood. Any who are afraid to touch these things are LAUGHED at by the rest; so general is the conviction of the truth, that”not what entereth into the mouth defileth you, but what cometh out of it”(9) tht evil lies in the commision of sin,an not in the nature of any food in ordinary use.”——-So if Augustin and the early Church felt ok to eat meat with it’s blood Why not be allowed to take a life saving blood transfusion?
JW’s (Watchtower Society) will never change their fallacious policy, because to do so will leave themselves open to litigation. They will ever say it’s a religious prohibition and regardless of any proven benefits, they will not go against doctrine.
Vaccination and organ transplant bans were also considered religious prohibitions by the Watchtower. Additionally, so were every one of the multitude of blood products (fractions) including hemoglobin.
Lee, thank you for your continuing work, exposing this criminal practice.
Here is my humble musical answer:
Very moving, and quite accurate as it turns out.
Assuming the conclusions given here are valid*, counterbalancing and overriding these findings is the fact that post-operation, bloodless patients enjoy higher survival ratings.
“Jehovah’s Witnesses…carefully track the activity of every member.”
They do not. Records of pedophilia mentioned here exist only to ensure that a pedophile cannot slip unnoticed from one congregation into another.
*I’m not saying they’re not; I’m just saying I’m not qualified to endorse them.
The safest course of action, by far, for elective surgery is a patient blood management protocol that maintains the safety net of red cell transfusion. It is important to understand that physicians are not actively seeking to transfuse blood products, as they are well informed as to the potential risks and complications. The majority of deaths among JWs are not coming from elective surgery. They are coming from trauma, chronic blood disorders (like Leukemia), and childbirth. Every JW congregation publisher has his activity recorded to compile the field service reports. They also keep a file of signed advance directives. It would be a fairly simple matter for the Watchtower to request that the congregation report any death arising out of a lack of blood or anemia.
“Every JW congregation publisher has his activity recorded to compile the field service reports.”
These are reported to Watchtower only in aggregate, not individually, for the sake of compiling worldwide statistics and allocation of resources.
Ditto with medical directives. On file at the congregation, forwarded nowhere.
If we take into account greater survival rates, blood being a foreign tissue, bloodless medicine saves more lives than it costs, and the gap will only widen over time. Doctors owe Jehovah’s Witnesses a debt for spurring its development.
1% is not a large number. I would be surprised if medical error alone does not cost greater than that number for given transfusions. The hospital setting is hardly error free.
Moreover, it is generally thought noble to be willing to put one’s life on the line for a cause deemed worthy. The military, for instance.
It would be a simple matter for the congregation to track and include with their monthly report. Your conclusions or statements regarding greater survival rate are erroneous suppositions. If you deem this a cause worthy of dying, by all means put your life on the line – that is your choice. Just bear in mind that vaccinations, organ transplants and blood fractions were at one time all believed to be “noble” reasons to put ones life in jeopardy.
Safer outcomes post-bloodless has been confirmed many times. Furthermore, it is intuitive. Blood is a foreign tissue and we all know the body tries to reject foreign tissue. Relieve it of that stress and it does better.
Moreover, if we look at the entire picture, JWs also abstain from overdrink, tobacco, drugs, even war, making it by far the ‘safest’ religion out there. If you claim 10K Witness deaths, how many must you lay at the feet of other faiths for these dangers?
The difference is that Jehovah’s Witnesses coerce their young into a belief system which is neither biblically based nor remotely based on sound medical and scientific data. The broad picture includes not only the ban on blood products, but the principle of shunning and the organizational cover up of child abuse, with internal management of matters which should always be left to professionals. Jehovah’s Witnesses are poorly educated and rely on this very principle for their religion to take root in the lives of so many millions worldwide. The growth is not evidence of any Godly blessing, it is the simple application of cult influence upon the lives of persons not well prepared to defend themselves against undue influence. The victims which suffer the worst are children, who are indoctrinated into this cult from infancy. This is what we will put a stop to with every effort possible. Awareness is raised, and we are making great strides in freeing persons of such influence, allowing them to think for themselves
JR
The fact is JW’s do not make public the amount of deaths from their blood policy. They could make that number public, as the military does, but for some reason they don’t. Anecdotally there are 1000’s of ex-JW’s that have stood up to say their friends or family died from a medical condition or trauma that may have been solved by receiving blood. The Watchtower honors NONE of their names after the funeral.
Physicians are well informed about the risks of using blood products, including all of the blood products (100% of blood in fractionated form) the WT permits. The blood supply is safe, and rejecting a medically necessary blood transfusion on the basis that there are few post surgery complications among patients who don’t use blood is reckless. Dying from anemia counterbalances any benefit from avoiding blood.
It is a fallacious argument to say that patients who do not receive a blood transfusion during a surgery do better post surgery because they didn’t receive blood. Patients who did not receive blood generally didn’t need it because they were not as sick. Hence, they do better.
What you say about pedophelia records is irrelevant, as Watchtower records kept concerning child sex abusers has never resulted in protection for JW children.
To be relevant, the study should have compared both the number of patients (having surgery) who died when:
1) Having bloodless procedures in lieu of traditional approach of blood transfusion
2) Having had the SAME types of procedures as group 1, but used traditional approach of blood transfusion
The same measures should be applied as were applied to the ‘bloodless’ group.
Otherwise the totals aren’t even relevant.
You can use the links at the bottom of the article to review the two studies that were used in generating our estimate.
I don’t believe this.most time. people who live with this choice have very strong faith and no one should knock them. I myself have been asked and today with so much technology that is not a problem like it was in the 70,or80s. People should mind the things they say and speak only when you have the truth.
“people who live with this choice have very strong faith and no one should knock them.”
If my faith included an edict that I must watch my children or loved ones die, when their death is easily preventable, would you knock me for it? I hope you would. There is a vast difference between a strong faith, and the truth. The fact that you think respecting someones faith means more than the lives of children, or loved ones is really sad. I hope you get the help you need to heal.
This!
Comments here reflect a certain technical nit-picking over morbidity statistics and their practical meaning.
A trauma or childbirth death due to blood loss, when that life could have been saved by a transfusion, is still a life lost.
That this loss comes from an erroneous religious interpretation, and a looking to hierarchical authority for medical decisions, is a scandal in itself.
My mom a Jehovah’s Witness died from not having a blood transfusion May 11, 2004. I was with her when she died, my dad was an elder, I had left the cult in 1990 and was not only shunned but I was disinherited in court for not returning. I was told they never mentioned (no transfusion) in the Kingdom Hall why my mom really had to die, the doctor begged me to talk to my dad, but you know how that goes. I sat with her on her hospital bed with her feeling hopeless while the elders swarmed the room like vultures making sure my dad did not cave in. I was not even allowed to be in the receiving line at her funeral for no longer being a JW. Such a needless loss, I say they murdered my mom. The worst day of my life and I have had many losses.
Very sorry for your loss Susan. Thank you for sharing your story here at AJWRB. If you would be willing to tell it in more detail, we could feature it in the hope that others will learn from your family’s story.
I am so sorry for the loss of your mother. That is just awful. My father was an elder and died from not accepting a blood transfusion. I was with him to when he died it was awful. I still have PTSD from it. Then an elder at the hall on stage tells everyone to be like my Dad he never acccepted a transfussion and died because of it. I was so angry. Like you said as far as I am concerned this awful cult is responsible for my dads and your mothers death.
Consider the emotional trauma. I knew of a 13 year old who received a blood transfusion by court order to treat his sickle cell anemia. According to Watchtower Society’s teachings, he is to equate this action as to being raped.
I had anal bleeddng and lost about one liter of blood. My albumin was down to 8.5. I told the doctors that they were smart enough to do what is necessary without blood.
They put me on a regime of some strong pills that bit by bit brought the albumin up to 13.5. I felt better that my own body made the blood instead of having some other person’s blood surging through my veins.
Albumin has been approved for use by the Watchtower for decades. https://ajwrb.org/the-watchtower-on-albumin
Just a bit biased, why not answer how many people have died from blood transfusions since 1961.eg.90% of hemophiliacs from hiv….JWs have always fought for God-given rights.I salute and adore Jehovah for free will,and am ever thankful for you allowing me to say so????
Its interesting that you bring this up Ann. JW’s often believe they have had some sort of divine protection from the AIDS epidemic that broke out in the 1980’s. The truth of the matter is that much of the AIDS transmission occurred among the Hemophiliac population since treatments of clotting factor requires the pooled blood of thousands of donors. The reality is that the Watchtower Society has given permission to JW hemophiliacs to use clotting factors since the mid 1970’s, thus leaving this population exposed to the risk at the worst possible time.
People who love Jah love their children as well. It seems those who hate JWs actually hate them when they refuse all forms of blood, and even when their consciences and science have figured a way for them to maintain their faith and by their own mind make a choice that can maintain both their faith and science.Hallelujah that God will resurrect both because Christ died for all our sins. Your hate is all over this page, brother????
Amen my sister!!!
I am sorry for each and every person who has died, that would have lived by accepting a blood transfusion. However, if an adult of sound mind refuses a blood transfusion, that is no ones business but there own. You can say they are part of a cult, or brainwashed, or whatever but they still have the right to refuse any sort of medical treatment or any treatment at all. There certainly are people who refuse surgery for various reasons (not just religious) who die because of that refusal. What about women who carry a pregnancy to full term, but have illnesses such as cancer, and know they could die because of delaying treatment while pregnant? There have been women who have died because of this.
The only real issue is that of JW’s children whose parents refuse blood transfusions for them. Sometimes, a court order is made to override the parents’ request. We would hope our legal system gives the child’s right to life over the parents’ beliefs.
Finally, the statistical analyses in the articles cited are so flawed, that using them is pointless. Practically every premise and conclusion made using the numbers provided are wrong and therefore cannot support the article’s contentions.
Sue N
While you admit that children are the greatest concern, and the fact that courts will intervene on their behalf, you completely ignore the evidence that a great majority of adult JWs now made their decision to become baptized Jehovah’s Witnesses when they were minors. Many of them were as young as 8-16 years of age. The extreme undue influence and control wielded over these minors carries over into adulthood. Your suggestion that they can decide for themselves once they become an adult is absolutely false. The indoctrination of minors along with the intense pressure to conform to the insular society of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the severe punishment which is executed upon anyone who would break the Witness blood doctrine is overwhelming. By the time such individuals become adults – it is far too late. All their friends and relatives are generally Witnesses, and these associations of a lifetime hold a person hostage and force them to conform or pay the price. This is something you need to learn.
As for the research, you said “the statistical analyses in the articles cited are so flawed, that using them is pointless. ” – Yet you provided not a single shred of evidence – not one fact to disprove the research published. It’s easy to make such an accusation without backing it up. This tells me you have not done any research at all on this subject matter.
The deaths because of implementation of Watchtower’s Blood policies are tragic and widespread. Our data is very accurate despite the hippa laws which protect the medical records of patients here in the US. The research was intentionally conservative on many level, and we are certain that we underestimated these deaths by a very fair factor. Additionally the research covered a specific period of time and does not even cover the decades prior during which many additional casualties occurred. Further we have casualties related to cases of leukemia and liver failure which are not all necessarily a component of this research.
Finally – you stated ” However, if an adult of sound mind refuses a blood transfusion, that is no ones business but there own”
Sadly – you are dead wrong. As I have posited, when deaths occur because of obedience to indoctrinated beliefs, this IS our business. This concerns all of us. The adults who govern this world and its medical procedures must take both mental health and physical well-being into account when determining whether a person has made a decision of their own accord, or is coerced into taking a certain position. If you study cult influence this will become crystal clear.
Sincerely
JR
I do not think that JWs telling their flock to not take blood transfusions is right.
There is nothing Biblical about this. However, you can’t force any adult, of right mind, legally to do something they don’t want to do. Any adult in the United States legally can refuse any medical treatments. I can go to the ER with chest pain, doctor says I need surgery. I say no and leave. So the doctor is going to get the police to force me into the operating room against my will? You are saying you don’t think JWs are of their right mind because they are a cult and are brainwashed? Hence are not able to make their own medical decisions? That would have to be proven in court, and legally a court will not say anyone, not just a JW, is incompetent because they won’t take a blood transfusion. To be legally incompetent is to be so totally unaware that you can’t take care of your basic needs (like my mom was in an advanced stage of Alzheimer’s) Our freedom of religion leads to many strange cults, some of which harm their members including children. We don’t know about these people until they come up in the news. People do snake handling as part of a religion, and have died from snake bites. Christian Scientists believe that only prayer can heal (although I think they’ve loosened up on this a bit, since you know, people were dying). Ultra Orthodox Jews have given baby boys hepatitis through circumcisions. They died. Hundreds of people in the US die every year because they believe in a charlatan treatments, say for cancer. We can’t force people to take chemo. I am addressing the legal aspects, because really there isn’t anything else objective to consider. As for your stats I am not talking about the numbers, but your methods of analysis. First, you did not compare the fatality rate of bloodless to non-bloodless surgeries, which is ultimately the issue. The total percentage of fatalities for bloodless surgeries may actually be lower than for those with blood. Then you applied the number of blood transfusions from population data (US) to the sample of JWs which can’t be done without matching demographics. You are saying, the JWs represent the US population, and that can’t be true. Then to take your deaths for the JWs in the US and apply it to the entire world population of JWs! My goodness No. And you take your “death rate” and apply it to a time span of 50+ years!! There are just so many “confounding” or “intervening” variables. I could address more on the article, but this is a comment section. You have my email address so we could correspond through that if you’d like. But be nice about it; your comment was a little condescending.
We agree the Watchtower organization wrongly prohibits its followers from conscientious acceptance of products rendered from blood. As you say, there is nothing biblical about it.
We agree adults can and should have freedom of choice over their own medical care. We also hold that adults should have every opportunity of having good information to make more informed decisions. This is the primary purpose of AJWRB.
We of AJWRB want nothing but the highest standard of care for Jehovah’s Witness patients, whether that be a conservative blood transfusion strategy or otherwise based on patient presentation and available therapies. That is to say, if a patient can be better served with a conservative strategy of blood use then they should be treated accordingly.
As you are surely aware, sufficiently severe anemia leads to premature mortality when it is caused by loss of blood, that is unless the condition is adequately treated. This is commonly termed “bleeding to death”. It’s a real thing. Organs fail due to oxygen deprivation and, left untreated, the patient dies. There are circumstances where the sole treatment to correct and treat severe anemia is the transfusion of red cells. In these instances, the patient will die without this transfusion.
There is an excellent journal resource useful for extrapolating conservative and/or liberal estimates of mortality suffered by the JW population opting to follow the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine. The article is by Beliaev et al, Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic red-blood-cell transfusion in severe symptomatic anemia, Vox Sanguinis, 2012 Jul;103(1):18-24. The article by Beliaev et al is based on data acquired from a first-world society with excellent medical facilities. There is sufficient information in this article that, when combined with publicly available population statistics from the same region, you can make your own assessment of mortality suffered by JW patients who refuse transfusion to treat anemia compared to patients who accept transfusion to treat the condition.
Since 1961 the Watchtower organization has prohibited its followers from accepting transfusion of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma (e.g., FFP) under pain of severe shunning. That is the primary position that has not changed. This has resulted in avoidable mortality. Something else we apparently agree on.
Whenever I read the comments of a truly devoted JW, I shudder. The comments usually involve vitriol, false accusations and evidence of paranoia. Nobody is hating on JWs. We are concerned persons, many who used to be brainwashed by Watchtower ourselves and we are trying to stop needless Watchtower Suicide. This is the reason I was at the United Nations in August 2016, to get more information that will help open the eyes of JWs to the truth about Watchtower and thus free them to think for themselves. Maybe for the first time in their lives.
Sue: It sounds as though you are not a JW. You probably cannot truly appreciate the level of undue influence, coercion, and misinformation these individuals are operating under. Is a truly “informed” level of consent present when most reject a medically necessary blood transfusion? My experience would suggest that it is not. When most JW’s are educated as to the irrational aspects of the Watchtower’s policy, and the shaky foundation upon which it is based, the majority reject it. It is the undue influence that prevents them from critically examining it, for fear of being branded “apostates”, and shunned by their friends and JW family. As for the the “flawed statistical analyses” that you reference, you would have to be more specific if you want a response.
The article did not say that the odds of dying went up by 1.4% if the patient did not receive blood. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. The overall death rate was 1.4%. Your supposition is that every one of those patients would have survived had they received a transfusion. With Hepatitis C, AIDS, othe blod borne diseases, and just the condition of the patient going into the surgery may have resulted in a portion of those patients dying anyway. I am not a a witness anymore, but if you are going to point out a travesty, at least have a solid argument. 1.4% of 1404 indicates less than 20 people died in that time frame. Honestly, that is a rather small number. How many people died from rejection of the blood? There really has to be an unbiased consideration of the stats.
Bloodless surgery has a 1.4% higher rate of mortality among JW’s according to Kitchens. These individuals (JWs) died specifically from a lack of blood. Their deaths occurred either as a primary or contributing result from rejecting blood. You are misinterpreting the data Dean. The higher rate of mortality (1.4%) would not be of just 1404 people included in this study. It would be of the entire JW population who would typically require a blood transfusion and reject it. The extrapolation, as explained both by Dr. Muramoto, and in the article you are commenting on, suggests that approximately 1220 deaths among the JW population in 2016 alone.
Honestly, the study itself is easy to read. People don’t have to guess about what he intended. The 1.4% is the total number of anemia-related deaths (20) out of 1404 major surgeries (mostly cardiac). This is not “extra deaths” as the general population still dies from anemia at about essentially the same rate… If you bleed faster than blood can be transfused, you can eventually die.
And you can’t just squeeze the IV bag to push more in faster.
It is sad that all you brothers sacrifice your kids at war, that is not biblical in the millions and use drugs and alcohol for recreational purposes and are critics of not putting someone else’s blood in their body?
How many people does your religion kill for permitting smoking, going to war, etc? Compare mortality rate of any religion vs Jehovah’s witnesses and you will be surprised. With fraternal love, Your brother
It is very difficult to make sense of what this person has written.
He writes:
“It is sad that all you brothers sacrifice your kids at war…”
What does this mean? Miguel calls whomever he is speaking to “brothers”. Is he inferring that those to whom he writes here on this site are ‘his brothers’? And from where does he invent the idea that someone here “sacrifice(d) (their) kids at war”?
This is an uneducated jumble.
He further writes:
“How many people does your religion kill for permitting smoking, going to war, etc?”
What religion is he referring to? Did he not refer to writers here as “brothers”? Who is “permitting smoking”..? Again another invention. It has been the secular forces in the various communities that have marginalized smoking and even second hand smoke. Watchtower cannot claim any glory for this. They don’t let anyone even vote.
Finally, he writes:
“Compare mortality rate of any religion vs Jehovah’s witnesses and you will be surprised.” This is just horseradish. There is absolutely no data anywhere that supports the idea that the mortality rate among Jehovah’s Witnesses is any better than for the greater community. In fact, quite he opposite.
He signs off with the below:
“With fraternal love, Your brother”
To whom does he refer to as “brother”. Please see his first reference to “brother” above. This man is seriously confused.
He is not confused. Almost all in the worldly and religious communities willingly send their sons and daughters off to war, approve of abortions, engage in potentially lethal habits such as smoking, drinking and drugs (no acceptable to Jehovah’s Witnesses). And how many deaths have been involved in wars around the world as well as these other things. Or did you forget to add those figures into your calculations.
Ah, but you are an “ex-Witness”. Enough said.
lkj Your statement that “almost all in the worldly and religious communities” is a vague and broad statement that is really no more than an assumption based on the prejudice of your own indoctrination rather that real evidence and facts. It doesn’t appear you’ve conducted any unbiased research of your own to even offer up statistics to support this comment, clearly then nothing more than an uninformed opinion. It’s easier to have someone else, (in this case a religious entity whose credentials come from themselves), do the research for you, without verifying their sources, and then citing their biased research without knowing for yourself whether what is presented to you is a factually and even scripturually sound. Not to mention the campaigns and voices that have the greatest influence in promoting an end to the issues JWs are so much against, such as abortion, drug use, and non violence rather than war are certainly not carried out by JWs. Truth can always withstand criticism. Why not find the evidence for yourself?
I go over this specific study at 9:08 in this video:
https://youtu.be/Crcj3pwxZU0?t=548
SUICIDE:
When someone faces death and someone offers them life and they refuse to accept it then they are deciding to commit suicide: God’s word tell us that in the last days knowledge would increase so why not use the knowledge that the Lord has given us. Daniel 12:4.
The recent video on JW.org regarding the elective death of an 11 year old boy, should stir anyone who believes this contrived, misapplied and fallacious doctrine to consider it no more than human sacrifice. There is no Biblical precedent for abstaining from blood transfusions. In fact, there is every precedent for putting life before law, as every Orthodox Jew will attest to. The Governing Body are guilty of manslaughter (GB legal term) on numerous counts, and one life lost is one too many. Shameful.