Historical personal narrative
Rado Vleugel describes how seeking reform of the Jehovah’s Witness blood policy led to judicial proceedings, disfellowshipping, and the loss of all his friends through mandated shunning.
Growing Up as a Jehovah’s Witness
My name is Rado Vleugel. I was born on January 1, 1973, in Amsterdam, while firecrackers were making a lot of noise.
The January 15, 1994, Watchtower described part of my history as a Jehovah’s Witness. I was six when two pioneers began studying the Bible with my parents. As a young child, I regularly accompanied these full-time preachers in the field ministry. I became a regular pioneer at seventeen.5
One year after I started pioneering, the elders appointed me as a ministerial servant. That same year, while I was still eighteen, I was assigned to conduct a congregation book study.
Questioning the Jehovah’s Witness Blood Policy
In the autumn of 1998, I purchased a new computer with a built-in modem, ready to explore the internet. Within a week, I discovered AJWRB’s website.
For several years, I had already had doubts about the blood issue. For example, I did not distribute the May 22, 1994, Awake! Its cover feature, “Youths Who Put God First,” discussed young Witnesses, blood transfusions, and deaths associated with refusing blood. I was troubled by its presentation.6
Translating “Stop the Insanity”
On the AJWRB website, I found the letter “Stop the Insanity.” I felt an obligation to translate it from English into Dutch. By the end of November 1998, the translation was finished and had been uploaded to the website.
To let Witnesses in the Netherlands know that important information was available online, I spoke anonymously with journalists. Two major Dutch newspapers published articles about AJWRB and my call for reform.
In my account, I recalled the following comment by Dutch branch spokesman Ruben van den Heuvel, reported in Algemeen Dagblad on November 27, 1998:
“Happily we have freedom of speech and I say, ‘let these people reveal themselves, then we can start a conversation.’”
A Television Appearance and Fear of Disfellowshipping
A few days later, I appeared on national television to discuss the blood issue. I was disguised, and my voice was altered, but the disguise was not good enough.
Witnesses from around the country telephoned the elders in my congregation and told them it was me. The elders then called me and said I had been recognized. Because I was deeply afraid of being disfellowshipped, I denied that I had appeared on television.
The next day, the elders called again. They told me they were going to drive to my parents’ home with a videotape of the broadcast to see whether my parents recognized me.
There was no place to hide. Before the elders arrived, I called my father and told him that I was the person who had appeared on television. My parents were shocked. The elders showed them the videotape anyway.
The Judicial Committee: Questions Without Answers
As expected, a judicial committee was formed. The accusations were apostasy and helping to form a sect. I asked to bring an observer with me, but that request was denied. Fortunately, many reform-minded elders who were also active online supported me during the process.
The committee consisted of four elders, all of whom were good friends of mine. The atmosphere was strange. We even made jokes together.
They asked whether I thought I was inspired by Jehovah. I answered, “If Jehovah used the donkey of Balaam, why should he not use me?” We laughed together.
Although the atmosphere was not cold and distant, they did not engage with my considered arguments. When I asked probing questions, they told me:
Plasma, fractions, and the soup illustration
One illustration I used remained unanswered. As I understood the policy at the time, all fractions or parts of plasma were permitted as matters of individual conscience, while plasma itself was prohibited.
I compared this to a physician who prohibited a patient from eating a particular soup but allowed ingredients from that soup to be eaten separately. In my illustration, chicken represented albumin, garlic represented immunoglobulins, and cornflour represented clotting factors VIII and IX.
To me, allowing blood-derived ingredients while prohibiting the source component raised a question that deserved an answer.
The decision I did not want
After a few hours of discussion, I was asked to leave the room so the elders could deliberate privately. When they called me back, their faces were very sad. They told me they had decided to disfellowship me. If I expressed remorse for my actions, they said, I would not be disfellowshipped.
I could not accept that the Society should be master of an individual’s conscience. I did not want to return to supporting a policy I believed was inhumane.
Appealing the Decision and Calling for Reform
I appealed, and an appeal committee was formed. As I understood it, the committee was in close contact with the branch, and it took a long time before I was called to appear.
At the end of February 1999, I appeared alone before its seven members. I felt that I had no meaningful rights in the process. They also decided to disfellowship me.
A final letter to the Society
As a last resort, I appealed to the Society. In my letter, I urged the Governing Body not to confuse a conscientious decision to accept blood with apostasy.
I referred to the October 1, 1994, Watchtower, which discussed individual decisions about certain blood-derived products.7 I believed that the conscientious decisions of “some Christians” had helped open the way for others to accept those products.
“What if ‘some Christians’ also accept the other blood components without violating their conscience? I hope that the decision of these ‘Christians’ may have a positive influence on the future decisions of the Governing Body.”
I also referred to the 1998 Bulgarian settlement. As I understood it, the agreement recognized members’ freedom to choose regarding blood transfusions without organizational controls or sanctions. I argued that disciplining someone for questioning the blood issue was inconsistent with that commitment.8
I asked for a written response. Instead, about a week later, the elders called to arrange a meeting at which they would tell me the Society’s answer. I wondered what had happened to the promised freedom of speech and why a constructive conversation had not been possible.
March 1999: Disfellowshipping and the Loss of Friends
On Saturday, March 6, 1999, I heard the final decision: disfellowshipping.
Three days later, the decision was announced to the congregation.
Sincerely,
Rado Vleugel
Historical and Bioethical Context
A story about dissent and shunning. Rado describes being disciplined after advocating blood-policy reform. He does not describe personally receiving a transfusion. His account therefore concerns the consequences of expressing disagreement as well as the policy itself. A published 2000 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, written by AJWRB’s Lee Elder, also mentions Rado’s disfellowshipping after speaking to journalists. It is a contemporary published account from an AJWRB participant, rather than independent verification of every event.8
The historical plasma illustration. Rado describes his understanding that all fractions or parts of plasma could be accepted individually while plasma itself was prohibited. His illustration challenges that distinction. The 1990 and 1994 guidance discussed personal decisions about albumin, immunoglobulins, and similar plasma-fraction injections.7, 9 The soup analogy illustrates a policy objection; it is not a description of interchangeable medical treatments. In September 2026, plasma itself became a matter of individual conscience.1
The 1994 article and Rado’s interpretation. The Watchtower discussed why some Christians accepted certain blood-derived products according to conscience. Rado’s view that their choices influenced the policy is his interpretation; the article does not itself establish that causal history.7
The Bulgarian settlement. The 1998 agreement was cited in contemporary debate about organizational sanctions and transfusion choice.8 Rado invoked it in his appeal. It should not be read as a worldwide judicial ruling that changed Watchtower’s blood rules for all members.
The newspaper quotation above is retained as Rado’s English rendering in his original account; AJWRB has not independently checked the newspaper archive for this revision. Private conversations and descriptions of the committees remain his recollections.
AJWRB welcomes the expansion of individual medical choice in 2026. Each patient’s present preferences should be established through accurate information, private discussion, and clear documentation. A historical narrative cannot determine another person’s current treatment choices or experience of their congregation. See AJWRB’s 2026 blood-policy overview and updated clinical guide.
Editorial Note: About AJWRB Patient Narratives
AJWRB publishes patient and family narratives to document the lived experience and human impact of Jehovah’s Witness medical policies and related institutional practices. These accounts are qualitative in nature and reflect the experiences, recollections, interpretations, and opinions of the individual contributors. The views expressed are their own and do not necessarily represent the views or conclusions of AJWRB. Personal narratives should not be understood as substitutes for clinical evidence, nor as independently establishing medical causation in an individual case.
We include these accounts because quantitative data and policy analysis alone cannot fully convey how medical directives are experienced by patients and families—including the effects of religious expectations, social relationships, institutional influence, and high-stakes medical decision-making. Read alongside clinical, historical, and bioethical evidence, patient narratives provide important context for understanding the real-world consequences of policy.
AJWRB remains institutionally neutral regarding an individual’s decision to remain affiliated with or separate from Jehovah’s Witnesses and advocates for every patient’s right to make medical decisions based on accurate information, free from coercion and with genuinely informed consent.
References
- Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses: Each Witness Now Decides Whether to Accept or Donate Main Blood Components. September 18, 2026. Accessed October 3, 2026.
- Jehovah’s Witnesses. How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Show Respect for Life? Questions From Readers. 2026. Accessed October 3, 2026.
- Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Expelling. Insight on the Scriptures. Online edition. Accessed October 3, 2026.
- Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Help for those who are removed from the congregation. The Watchtower—Study Edition. August 2024. Paragraphs 12–15. Accessed October 3, 2026.
- Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Pioneers bestow and receive blessings. The Watchtower. January 15, 1994:21–23. Rado’s background:22. Accessed October 3, 2026.
- Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Page two: Youths who put God first. Awake! May 22, 1994:2. Introduces cover feature:3–15. Accessed October 3, 2026.
- Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Questions from readers: Would it be proper for a Christian to accept a vaccination or some other medical injection containing human albumin? The Watchtower. October 1, 1994:31. Accessed October 3, 2026.
- Elder L. Why some Jehovah’s Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy. J Med Ethics. 2000;26(5):375–380. doi:10.1136/jme.26.5.375. See especially:378. Accessed October 3, 2026.
- Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Questions from readers: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses accept injections of a blood fraction, such as immune globulin or albumin? The Watchtower. June 1, 1990:30–31. Accessed October 3, 2026.
This brave and honorable young man has the very characteristics that remind me of the brave dutch Christians who hid and helped those persecuted by the nazis in the second world war. The society has been wrong and reversed its views on vaccination, organ transplants and now disfellowships a good lad for merely expressing an opinion when Bulgarians can have a blood transfusion without sanction! Hypocrites! My heart goes out to him, he is a hero!
Greetings from Bacolod City, Philippines! Can I ask if you have any email adds of the brothers from the governing body. I am a disciplined sister for working in Philippine Red Cross Blood Bank Center. I am a resident pathologist and blood bank section is part of my training. I was baptized last Dec. 2009 in Bacolod City Philippines. I am from Araneta-English Congregation, Tangub, Bacolod City. I wrote a letter for the governing body of Watchtower Society, however I did not find any email adds from jw.org website. It would waste both my time and money sending a letter through post office as I dont have the assurance wether the letter would be delivered, accepted, read or be ignored by Watchtower Society. However it would be a great pleasure if you could give me referrals. Thank you very much and Jah bless!
You can find the WTS address on their website at jw.org. We are also willing
to consider publication of your letter and any response you receive.
I find it interesting that your elders told you “We don’t comment on these questions, we follow the point of view of the Governing Body.”
It’s reminiscent of the nazis who were prosecuted at the neuremberg trials who claimed they were just following orders.
As individuals we are all responsible to act in accordance with our bible trained conscience and in the end will be individually responsible to God.
That day (disfellowshipping day) they lost YOU as a friend!