On March 20, 2026, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses announced a significant revision to its long-standing medical guidance concerning blood. In Governing Body Update #2 (2026), delivered by Gerrit Lösch, the organization reclassified preoperative autologous blood donation (PAD)—the collection, storage, and later reinfusion of a patient’s own blood—from a prohibited practice to a matter of individual conscience.[1] This revision represents one of the most consequential changes to Jehovah’s Witness blood policy in decades and expands the range of medically acceptable options available to many Witness patients.
AJWRB welcomes this development. Any policy change that increases patient choice and creates additional opportunities to reduce preventable medical risk deserves careful consideration. For many Jehovah’s Witnesses, the revised guidance may provide access to a treatment option that was previously regarded as religiously impermissible.
At the same time, the revision raises important ethical and practical questions that extend well beyond the permissibility of preoperative autologous donation itself. How should clinicians counsel patients whose advance directives or personal understanding of organizational policy predate this change? What are the implications for Jehovah’s Witnesses receiving care in healthcare systems where autologous blood collection is unavailable or impractical? More broadly, what does this revision suggest about the relationship between evolving organizational guidance, informed consent, and individual conscience in high-stakes medical decision-making?
This article examines those questions from a bioethical and clinical perspective. It reviews the doctrinal revision, considers its implications for healthcare professionals and Jehovah’s Witness patients, and identifies several issues that remain unresolved, including geographic disparities in access, the continuing distinction between major blood components and blood fractions, the need to update advance medical directives, and the role of mandated shunning in evaluating the voluntariness of informed medical decisions. The purpose is not to challenge sincerely held religious convictions, but to examine how this important policy development may affect informed consent, patient autonomy, and clinical practice.
1. The Doctrinal Pivot: From “Prohibition” to “Personal Conscience”
For more than six decades, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society taught that blood removed from the body retained a sacred status and, consistent with its interpretation of biblical passages concerning blood, should be “poured out” rather than stored for later medical use.[2] Consequently, preoperative autologous blood donation (PAD)—the collection and storage of a patient’s own blood before surgery for later reinfusion—was regarded as incompatible with Jehovah’s Witness teaching. As recently as 2021, official organizational literature stated that donating one’s own blood for later use was “not acceptable for Christians.”[3]
The March 2026 revision represents a significant departure from that longstanding position. In Governing Body Update #2 (2026), the Governing Body stated:
“The Bible does not comment on the use of a person’s own blood in medical and surgical care… This includes whether to allow his own blood to be removed, stored, and then given back to him.” [1]
By reclassifying PAD as a matter of individual conscience rather than organizational prohibition, the revised guidance substantially changes the ethical framework through which Jehovah’s Witnesses evaluate this medical intervention. Rather than presenting the practice as inconsistent with biblical requirements, the organization now leaves the decision to the informed judgment of individual members.
From a bioethical perspective, this revision is noteworthy for reasons that extend beyond PAD itself. It illustrates that organizational guidance governing life-altering medical decisions can evolve. For clinicians, this underscores the importance of exploring each patient’s current understanding of organizational teaching rather than assuming that long-standing policies remain unchanged or that all patients are aware of recent revisions. For Jehovah’s Witnesses and their families, the change also invites reflection on how matters previously presented as religious prohibitions may later be reframed as questions of individual conscience.
AJWRB welcomes this expansion of individual choice. At the same time, the revision raises broader questions concerning informed consent, doctrinal evolution, and institutional accountability that warrant careful ethical examination.
2. The Medical Framework: Major Blood Components, Blood Fractions, and Continuing Ethical Questions
Understanding the significance of the 2026 revision requires placing it within the broader framework of Jehovah’s Witness blood policy. While the recent change concerns the use of a patient’s own stored blood, the organization has, since 2000, distinguished between major blood components and blood fractions derived from donated blood.[4]
Under current organizational guidance, Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to refuse transfusions of whole blood and the four primary blood components—red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma. At the same time, individual members may decide, as a matter of personal conscience, whether to accept blood fractions derived from donated blood. These include products such as albumin, immunoglobulins, clotting factors, hemoglobin-based therapies, and numerous plasma-derived derivatives used routinely in modern medical practice.[4]
The scope of this distinction is not always widely appreciated. Many permitted blood fractions represent substantial portions of whole blood or are derived from clinically significant blood components. For example:
- Hemoglobin: Comprises approximately 15% of whole blood volume.
- Albumin: Roughly 2% of volume.
- Cryoprecipitate and Cryosupernatant: Together are produced by separating essentially the entirety of donated plasma, which itself comprises approximately 55% of whole blood volume.
Viewed together, these examples illustrate that current organizational policy already permits the therapeutic use of substantial blood-derived material in a variety of clinical contexts, even while transfusion of the four major blood components remains prohibited.
The March 2026 revision further expands the range of acceptable therapies by permitting Jehovah’s Witnesses to decide, according to their personal conscience, whether to undergo preoperative autologous blood donation and reinfusion.[1] Consequently, current policy permits both the use of a patient’s own stored blood and a wide range of blood-derived products obtained from other donors, while continuing to prohibit transfusion of the four major allogeneic blood components. Acceptance of those components may still expose baptized members to significant organizational sanctions, including mandated shunning.
From the perspective of transfusion medicine, these distinctions continue to generate ethical and clinical discussion. Some commentators have questioned whether permitting extensive therapeutic use of blood-derived fractions while prohibiting transfusion of the principal cellular components reflects a medically coherent distinction, whereas others view the policy as an effort to reconcile sincerely held religious convictions with advances in medical science.[5] Whatever position one adopts, the practical result is a framework of increasing complexity that requires careful navigation by both patients and healthcare professionals.
For clinicians, these developments reinforce the importance of individualized discussions rather than assumptions based solely on religious affiliation. Individual Jehovah’s Witnesses may differ in their understanding of current organizational guidance, particularly following recent doctrinal revisions, and may vary in which blood-derived therapies they personally regard as religiously acceptable. Careful exploration of a patient’s current understanding and preferences, therefore, remains an essential component of informed consent.
From AJWRB’s perspective, the 2026 revision represents a meaningful expansion of individual choice and should be welcomed. At the same time, the coexistence of newly permitted autologous blood storage, long-permitted blood fractions, and the continuing prohibition of major allogeneic blood components illustrates that organizational blood policy continues to evolve. That evolution, in turn, raises broader questions concerning informed consent, doctrinal development, and institutional accountability that merit continued bioethical examination.
3. Bioethical Implications and Healthcare System Considerations
The 2026 revision expands the range of treatment options available to many Jehovah’s Witness patients. However, the practical benefits of this change are likely to vary considerably depending on clinical circumstances, healthcare infrastructure, and geographic location.
Unequal Access to Autologous Blood Programs
Preoperative autologous blood donation (PAD) is generally available only within healthcare systems possessing the resources necessary to collect, process, store, and safely reinfuse a patient’s blood. In many low-resource settings, including parts of sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, these services may be unavailable or severely limited. Consequently, the practical significance of the 2026 policy revision may differ substantially across regions.
This disparity creates an important ethical question. A Jehovah’s Witness undergoing elective surgery at a tertiary medical center in London, New York, or Tokyo may now have access to a treatment option that aligns with current organizational guidance. By contrast, a patient requiring comparable care in a resource-limited setting may have no realistic opportunity to utilize PAD, leaving refusal of allogeneic blood transfusion as the only organizationally acceptable option.
The benefits of PAD may also be limited for certain patient populations. Individuals with significant anemia, chronic illness, malnutrition, or those requiring urgent surgery may be unable to donate sufficient blood in advance of their procedure. For these patients, the recent policy revision may offer little practical benefit despite its expanded recognition of individual conscience.
Implications for Healthcare Delivery
Autologous blood programs also require additional institutional resources. Hospitals offering PAD must maintain systems for donor screening, collection, labeling, storage, transport, and traceability to ensure that each unit is returned only to the original donor. Because autologous units generally cannot be transferred to other patients if unused, wastage rates may exceed those associated with standard blood inventories.[6]
These operational realities illustrate that doctrinal developments may have implications extending beyond individual patients to healthcare institutions responsible for implementing blood conservation strategies. The purpose of highlighting these considerations is not to question the legitimacy of accommodating sincerely held religious beliefs, but to recognize that such accommodations may require additional clinical resources and logistical planning. Understanding these implications is therefore relevant to clinicians, hospital administrators, and policymakers responsible for delivering equitable care.
From a broader bioethical perspective, the 2026 revision demonstrates that organizational policy changes can influence not only individual treatment decisions but also the practical demands placed upon healthcare systems. As additional blood-related interventions are reclassified as matters of personal conscience, continued dialogue among clinicians, ethicists, healthcare administrators, and religious communities will be important to ensure that evolving policies remain compatible with both patient-centered care and responsible stewardship of healthcare resources.
4. Institutional Accountability and the Ethics of Doctrinal Change
The March 2026 revision raises questions that extend beyond clinical practice and into the ethics of institutional decision-making. When an organization substantially revises long-standing medical guidance, it is reasonable to ask how responsibility for earlier policies should be understood and communicated.
For more than six decades, Jehovah’s Witnesses who declined preoperative autologous blood donation did so in reliance on organizational guidance that characterized the practice as inconsistent with biblical requirements.[2,3] The 2026 revision now places that decision within the realm of individual conscience.[1] While religious organizations have the right to reconsider and refine their doctrinal interpretations, significant changes involving life-altering medical decisions inevitably invite reflection on how earlier guidance should be understood in light of subsequent revisions.
One of the most difficult ethical questions concerns those who made irreversible medical decisions under the previous policy. For many Jehovah’s Witness families, this question is not merely theoretical. Some individuals lost spouses, parents, children, or close friends after medical decisions made in faithful adherence to the organizational policy then in force. For those families, the recent revision may prompt understandable questions about how those earlier sacrifices should be viewed today. Recognizing that experience does not require assigning legal or moral blame; it simply acknowledges that doctrinal changes affecting life-and-death medical decisions can carry profound and enduring human consequences.
The present policy change does not, by itself, establish that previous guidance was incorrect, nor does it determine how those historical decisions should ultimately be evaluated. It does, however, underscore the importance of transparency whenever institutional guidance governing high-stakes medical care evolves. Open acknowledgment of doctrinal development allows both current members and affected families to better understand the historical context in which those decisions were made.
A related consideration concerns prospective accountability. By placing PAD within the domain of personal conscience, responsibility for future decisions now rests more directly with individual members and their healthcare teams. From an ethical perspective, this shift highlights the importance of ensuring that patients receive accurate, current information and sufficient opportunity to make decisions that reflect their own informed values. It also underscores the continuing need for clear communication whenever doctrinal guidance affecting medical care changes.
These questions are not unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. More broadly, they illustrate a recurring challenge in bioethics: how should institutions address the ethical consequences of evolving guidance when earlier policies have influenced high-stakes medical decisions? The PAD revision provides a contemporary case study through which broader issues of institutional responsibility, informed consent, and doctrinal development can be examined.
From AJWRB’s perspective, the 2026 revision represents a welcome expansion of individual conscience. It also serves as a reminder that changes in medical policy do not occur in a historical vacuum. They become part of the lived experience of patients and families who made deeply consequential decisions under earlier guidance. Recognizing that history with honesty, compassion, and transparency is consistent with the broader bioethical commitment to respect for persons, informed decision-making, and institutional accountability.
5. Updating Advance Directives Following the 2026 Policy Revision
One practical consequence of the March 2026 revision is that many existing Jehovah’s Witness advance medical directives may no longer fully reflect the range of choices now permitted under current organizational guidance.
For many years, standard Jehovah’s Witness advance directive forms and personal “No Blood” cards included explicit statements refusing preoperative autologous blood donation and reinfusion.[7] Because the 2026 revision now places this procedure within the realm of individual conscience,[1] previously completed documents may not accurately represent a patient’s present wishes unless they have been reviewed and updated.
For Jehovah’s Witnesses, this development provides an opportunity to reconsider existing advance directives in light of current organizational guidance and their own personal convictions. Individuals who now regard preoperative autologous blood donation as an acceptable option may wish to revise their documents accordingly, ensuring that their written instructions accurately reflect their present treatment preferences.
The revision also has practical implications for healthcare professionals. When caring for Jehovah’s Witness patients whose advance directives or “No Blood” cards predate March 20, 2026, clinicians should avoid assuming that those documents fully represent the patient’s current views regarding autologous blood storage. Whenever possible, treatment preferences should be confirmed directly with the patient, particularly when elective procedures allow time for informed discussion.
This recommendation reflects a broader principle of informed consent rather than a concern unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Advance directives are most ethically effective when they accurately express a patient’s contemporaneous values and preferences. Significant changes in medical circumstances, personal beliefs, or institutional guidance provide appropriate occasions for reviewing and, where necessary, updating these documents.
From AJWRB’s perspective, the March 2026 revision underscores the importance of periodic review of advance medical directives. Helping patients ensure that their written instructions remain consistent with both their current beliefs and current organizational guidance strengthens patient autonomy and reduces the possibility of unintended treatment decisions during medical emergencies.
6. Mandated Shunning and the Integrity of Informed Consent
The March 2026 revision expands the scope of individual conscience in one important area of blood-related medical care. Nevertheless, it does not alter another longstanding feature of Jehovah’s Witness organizational policy: baptized members who knowingly accept certain prohibited blood transfusions may still face mandated shunning and the loss of significant social and familial relationships.
From a bioethical perspective, this distinction remains important because informed consent requires more than the communication of medical information. Ethical consent also requires that treatment decisions be made voluntarily, free from undue external influence. Respecting patient autonomy, therefore, involves not only honoring sincerely held religious convictions but also recognizing circumstances in which substantial social pressures may influence decision-making.
For many Jehovah’s Witnesses, religious belief and community identity are inseparable and reinforce one another in ways that are entirely compatible with autonomous choice. Many patients refuse blood products because they regard that decision as a genuine expression of their personal faith, and those decisions deserve the same respect afforded to any competent adult exercising religious liberty.
At the same time, the existence of mandated shunning introduces a structural factor that may complicate voluntariness for some individuals. Where accepting a prohibited treatment could result in the loss of one’s family relationships, congregation, and primary social support network, clinicians and ethicists should recognize that these potential consequences may become part of the patient’s decisional environment. The significance of those pressures will necessarily differ from one individual to another and should not be presumed.
For healthcare professionals, this reinforces the importance of confidential, non-directive conversations that allow patients to express their wishes privately, without organizational or familial influence. Such discussions are not intended to challenge sincerely held religious beliefs. Rather, they provide an opportunity to determine whether a patient’s decision reflects their own informed understanding and values or whether unresolved concerns, informational uncertainty, or fear of social consequences warrant additional exploration.
The broader ethical question extends beyond Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whenever high-stakes medical decisions occur within communities that maintain evolving normative guidance together with significant consequences for dissent, clinicians have a responsibility to ensure that informed consent reflects both accurate information and meaningful voluntariness. Protecting religious liberty and safeguarding autonomous decision-making are complementary—not competing—ethical commitments.
From AJWRB’s perspective, the 2026 revision represents meaningful progress toward expanding individual conscience. The organization believes that this progress will be most fully realized when every Jehovah’s Witness can make life-altering medical decisions with complete confidence that those decisions reflect personal conviction rather than concern over potential social or organizational consequences. Continued dialogue concerning informed consent, transparency, and patient autonomy remains essential to that goal.
Conclusion
The March 2026 revision permitting preoperative autologous blood donation represents one of the most significant developments in Jehovah’s Witness medical policy in decades. By reclassifying a practice long presented as incompatible with biblical requirements into a matter of individual conscience, the organization has expanded the range of medical choices available to its members and created an important opportunity to reexamine informed consent, doctrinal development, and patient autonomy.
This change is welcome. It demonstrates that organizational guidance governing life-altering medical decisions can evolve and reinforces the importance of ensuring that patients make treatment decisions based on current information, an accurate understanding of available options, and their own deeply held values. It also reminds clinicians that individual Jehovah’s Witnesses may differ in their understanding and application of current organizational guidance, particularly during periods of doctrinal transition.
The revision does not, however, resolve every ethical question. The continuing prohibition of major allogeneic blood components, the practice of mandated shunning for certain forms of religious non-compliance, and disparities in access to blood conservation technologies remain important subjects for ongoing clinical and bioethical discussion. Equally important is acknowledging the experiences of patients and families who made irreversible medical decisions under earlier guidance. Doctrinal change does not occur in isolation; it becomes part of the lived history of those whose decisions were shaped by the information available to them at the time.
Ultimately, the significance of the 2026 PAD revision extends beyond a single medical procedure. It highlights the continuing need for transparent communication, individualized clinical assessment, and respect for both religious liberty and authentic patient autonomy. AJWRB welcomes this expansion of individual conscience and hopes it contributes to a future in which every Jehovah’s Witness can make life-altering medical decisions with confidence that those decisions reflect their own informed convictions.
Footnotes & References
[1] Governing Body Update #2 (2026), JW Broadcasting, March 20, 2026.
[2] Blood, Medicine and the Law of God, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1961, pp. 14-15.
[3] Enjoy Life Forever!—An Interactive Bible Course, Endnote #3, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 2021.
[4] “Questions From Readers,” The Watchtower, October 15, 2000, and June 15, 2004.
[5] AJWRB Analysis, “The Hemoglobin Paradox,” 2024.
[6] Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, “Efficiency and Cost of Autologous Blood Donation,” 2022.
[7] Advance Decision to Refuse Specified Medical Treatment (DPA), standard JW form, 2023 revision.
A Note on Qualitative Patient Narratives:
The bioethical analysis and clinical guidance presented in the text above are intended for professional review. However, AJWRB recognizes that behind every clinical discussion 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 Jehovah’s Witness blood refusal and informed consent. Please note that while these community-generated narratives are anecdotal and remain strictly distinct from peer-reviewed clinical data, we preserve them as vital qualitative perspectives on the real-world consequences of institutional medical directives.
I don’t know what to say. It’s stunningly sad that any JW would not see through this hypocrisy now.
I knew about fractions and certainly understood the hypocrisy back then, but this is over the top.
When was it decided that people were not “eating” blood? What ever happened to the old- Jw “fed” intravenously line? Did it go out of fashion?
I spoke to a Jw relative back when fractions were given the green light. My hope of course, was that he would wake up and see the GB for who they are..
Instead, once he also saw the hypocrisy after explaining it a few times- he announce proudly- “well, no fractions for me or my family”!
At that moment, I realized how perverted their minds have become due to the many years of brainwashing.
I felt awful that I could now be the reason why he or his family rejects a treatment.
There is no winning I’m afraid. While the hypocrisy and the true biblical meaning need to be understood- and the GB needs to be exposed- how do we do that IF the R &F are so hoodwinked that they will blame and shun the treatment instead of the GB?
There is no other way to say it- they are a death cult.
In the hands of those lost men are the lives of many.
Accountability will be to God alone. They will never be held accountable by their feeble minded members, and they will never admit to killing their own members.
This does NOTHING for those in emergencies when it is most important! Will a JW ever stand up and say that? NO! Deceived cowards they all are.
I feel sick. Mind control is very real- so many people don’t realize that.
Never let these people into your home or near your children.
They are NOT harmless & they do not have Christ. They are blind and led by the blind.
Please Pray for them.
Of the many thoughts running through my mind right now, here just these:
While it is generally welcome that there is finally some movement in the blood doctrine, this change will benefit only a few Jehovah’s Witnesses (assuming they can even convince their, and I mean that with all due respect, Watchtower-trained conscience that it might not be their God Himself who is demanding this sacrifice from them).
Preoperative Autologous Blood Donation is only useful for planned medical procedures or therapies, not for emergencies requiring whole blood, platelet-, or red blood-cell-concentrates — at least if the emergency or accident occurs more than 4-7 or 35-42 days after the autologous blood donation.
Regardless of whether the facility is a high-tech clinic or not, red blood-cell-concentrates and whole blood units cannot be stored for longer than 35-42 days, and platelet-concentrates are generally only viable for 4-7 days.
Nevertheless, for anyone who feels this applies to them: Update your advance medical directive and the cards in your wallet! Talk to your doctors and healthcare providers and let them know about the change — now. Plan any upcoming procedures and treatments accordingly.
“The Bible does not comment on the use of a person’s own blood in medical and surgical care” — exactly! In fact, the Bible does not address the use of blood in medical and surgical care at all.
The concept that a group of people presumes to place the value of their own abstract doctrine above the concrete value of other people’s lives — and to pass off their interpretation as the will of God — is unimaginably presumptuous and, in my view, deeply criminal.
The Governing Body, regardless of its composition, repeatedly brings upon itself grave guilt.
The Israelites built the Golden Calf as a symbol of their worship, even though it was merely an idol.
They revered the symbol more than their original relationship with God.
The symbol became more important than the actual belief in God, more important than love for God and for others, more important than compassion — more important than everything that being a Christian is supposed to be about.
Unfortunately, this “clarification” also comes too late for many people.
I am writing from Germany. My thoughts are now with all those people around the world who have lost family members, friends, or even their own lives because of the harmful blood doctrine; who themselves, or whose family members or friends, have had to endure unnecessarily complicated and painful treatments or procedures; or those who have struggled or are struggling with serious conflicts of conscience.
You are not alone.
Hi
I want to know whether the blood transfusion issue has been challenged in court?
Hi,
I’m not a legal expert.
Or do you mean because I used the word “criminal”? That is my personal view from a moral standpoint.
Aside from that, yes, broadly speaking, there have been various international legal attempts and lawsuits, against parents who refused a blood transfusion despite an immediate threat to their child’s life (these are usually expedited proceedings in family court); against the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization; or by parents or patients, who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, against doctors, hospitals, authorities.
To summarize, to my knowledge, the current situation (in Germany) is:
– In the case of children: Saving lives takes precedence over parental wishes; the court almost always intervenes, and blood transfusions are permitted.
– In the case of adults: The right to self-determination and freedom of religion prevails, even if it costs them their life, unless there are well-founded doubts about, for example, their capacity to make decisions, the certainty in their decision, or the voluntariness of the decision.
– The Jehovah’s Witnesses organization: Legally very difficult.
Freedom of religion and the right to self-determination enjoy a very high level of protection (and that is a very good and very important thing).
However, an increasing number of Jehovah’s Witnesses are unsure, particularly because of the doctrine on blood, whether the instruction to sacrifice one’s own life in the worst-case scenario is not merely a human interpretation introduced some 65 years ago, in complete contrast to the whole message of the bible, and significantly amended on several occasions since then, rather than divine will (which has been confirmed not least by the Governing Body’s most recent change).
That some J.’s Witnesses have used and continue to use the specific advance medical care directive due to intense psychological pressure and fear of social ostracism, always in the hope that nothing bad will happen, is difficult to prove in a legal context.
Here in Germany, even though you’re underage, if you’re 14 years or older, and if you give the impression that you are “capable of making decisions and giving consent” and can make a ‘convincing’ case, you’re already allowed to make that decision for yourself (incidentally, according to German law, you’re not considered mentally and emotionally mature enough to drive a car until you’re 18).
Despite all the facts in the fatal history of the blood doctrine, many Jehovah’s Witnesses would therefore, in the worst-case scenario, still lose their lives out of uncertainty or because of a decision made far too early in a young life.
So what was legally intended as protection of religion and self-determination can turn into a deadly trap.
That is why I consider the work of ‘AJWRB’ to be so extraordinarily important, in the hope that as many Jehovah’s Witnesses as possible will be able to engage with this issue truly free, without having to feel afraid.
Hi
Thanks for the reply.
The Watchtower orginization really needs to be exposed in court not only for blood transfusions but also because of their failed predictions about the 2nd coming of Christ.
This will create awareness for other believers.
Correction: Blood doctrine introduced in 1945.
This “clarification” from the Governing Body about autologous blood donation dated March 20, 2026 (published in a video starting at approximately minute 11), is not suitable to save the life of a Jehovah’s Witness in an emergency, such as an accident or an emergency surgery with significant blood loss. Blood donations, whether one’s own or someone else’s, have a maximum shelf life of 42 days.
Ironically, autologous blood donation is exactly what could have saved my mother’s life.
My mother was a 3. generation Jehovah’s Witness and died after a planned operation and an emergency operation due to postoperative complications three and a half weeks later in what was called an induced coma.
She needed whole blood or packed red blood cells, but of course as a Jehovah’s Witness had refused both.
Preoperative autologous blood donation was also out of the question due to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ bylaws at the time.
[Side note: the “permitted” fractions of erythrocytes—red blood cells—don’t exist in that form; these cells aren’t “shredable”—you can only extract the hemoglobin (the hemoglobin is located inside the red blood cells). The GB has “permitted” Hemoglobin since June 15, 2000, BUT:
You can imagine it like this, the erythrocytes are like a taxi, and the hemoglobin is the passenger carrying the vital/essential oxygen.
However, hemoglobin without the erythrocytes (the taxi) is like a passenger who doesn’t know their way around and doesn’t know where they’re going.
This measure only helps in mild cases and even then only in the short term.
The fact is: If you have severe blood loss, you need whole blood or red blood cells for proper oxygen transport. Period.
Without the “taxi,” hemoglobin can’t reach all the places it’s needed on its own, it is quickly broken down—and can even become toxic.
“Fractions of erythrocytes”—a highlighted alternative, then, which isn’t one at all.]
My Father naturally was initially overwhelmed by this latest “clarification”—it wasn’t even announced at the meetings/congregation; he found out from me.
It was clear that eventually “the light would shine brighter again,” but the silence among the Jehovah’s Witnesses shocks me deeply.
Most of the brothers and sisters in the meetings/congregation are unaware of the new blood-policy from the internet video.
It has not been announced in the congregations to this day, a month after update #2 (and likely never will be).
But many of the older members aren’t internet-savvy and therefore aren’t watching the videos.
If, for example, they’re planning surgery next month, they have still no idea that they’ve received a new “authorization” at least for autologous blood donation.
I said to my father, how can such silence be Christian? They shouldn’t be able to sleep a wink until everyone who might be affected knew.
How can dietary laws from the Old Testament of the Bible and sacrificial regulations be twisted in such a way that the symbol becomes more important than what it represents?
How can a person or group dare to portray life as God’s gift, while simultaneously interpreting the Bible on matters of survival according to their own judgement, making drastic changes over the decades, and presenting each of their INTERPRETATIONS as God’s will, thereby not only accepting the death of people but even promoting it?
We as a family and the medical staff had to watch my mom die day and night for 3 1/2 weeks without being allowed to help.
We were told she could hear us but not react.
We saw what it did to her body, because her organs died one after the other due to lack of oxygen; we saw how her blood looked less and less like blood and more and more like orange marmalade, and how it clotted during dialysis; we saw how exhausted, desperate doctors tried to wake her up a little, which led to sudden movements, but they had to give that up because it would have caused her indescribable pain.
Now, to hear a—smiling—member of the Governing Body say that if this planned operation had happened only now, my mother and other people would at least have had the chance to assert their right to live their CURRENT lifes is hard to bear.
Do these people have even the slightest idea what their behavior does to Jehovah’s Witnesses or others who have lost a loved one or a patient because of the Governing Body’s personal interpretations?
I don’t see a single spark of compassion from the Governing Body, I don’t hear a single loving word of regret, and they are taking absolutely no responsibility.
What does this whole blood policy do to parents whose child has died or will die (or, to be precise, does not die for a loving God, but is sacrificed to a personal interpretation by humans)?
“Clarification”—as if generations of Jehovah’s Witnesses just didn’t understand it properly, as if it wasn’t still literally written on JWorg to this present day—I quote:
“This clearly rules out one common use of autologous blood—preoperative collection, storage, and later infusion of a patient’s own blood. In such procedure, this is what is done: Prior to elective surgery, some units of a person’s whole blood are banked or the red cells are separated, frozen, and stored. Then if it seems that the patient needs blood during or following surgery, his own stored blood can be returned to him. Current anxieties about blood-borne diseases have made this use of autologous blood popular. Jehovah’s Witnesses, though, DO NOT accept this procedure. We have long appreciated that such stored blood certainly is no longer part of the person. It has been completely removed from him, so it should be disposed of in line with God’s Law: “You should pour it out upon the ground as water.”—Deuteronomy 12:24.” (Source https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1989169?q=preoperative+collection&p=doc),
and
“Occasionally, a doctor will urge a patient to deposit his own blood weeks before surgery (preoperative autologous blood donation, or PAD) so that if the need arises, he could transfuse the patient with his own stored blood. However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out—returned to God, as it were. Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ‘abstain from blood.’ Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law.” (Source https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20001015/Questions-From-Readers/)
End of quote.
I could somewhat make peace with my mother’s early and unnecessary death if I were certain that she had been one hundred percent convinced of her decision.
The opposite is true: I’m sure she wasn’t. That she was no longer sure whether actually Jehovah himself was demanding this sacrifice from her.
But she had neither the time nor the opportunity to question this without fear.
This last update has proven that the prohibition against blood never was God’s law.
The organization hasn’t clarified God’s will now through “New Light”; they have presumed to know and interpret God’s will—back then, and now again.
That is incredibly presumptuous.
It is profoundly unchristian—what would Jesus say? Jesus even declares all foods to be clean. See Mark chapter 7—and it is inhuman.
For any Witnesses who might be reading this: within the organization, there has long been this group, including many elders, that advocates for reform of the blood issue.
PLEASE don’t be afraid and inform yourself here on these pages.
No one here will force you to do anything or try to talk you into anything.
But please, for your own sake, and for the sake of your loved ones: only make informed decisions.
If something is truly the truth, should it fear research and questioning? Or shouldn’t “The Truth” be able to prove itself and not have to fear any questions?
I am infinitely sorry for every person who has lost family members, friends, patients, or even their own life, and I can only hope and pray that all Jehovah’s Witnesses who are uncertain in any way will choose life.
It’s been a long journey of my fading out out of the organization probably over 20 years. It was the latest update on blood that put me over the edge so a couple weeks ago I told my wife I’m no longer going to the meetings anymore. Of course that hit hard. I told her that straw that broke the camels back was the change in blood transfusions. I said how can you be disfellowshipped one minute for taking a blood transfusion even with your own blood and not be with a stroke of a pen. Long story short she went to one of the elders at our hall who on the HLC and asked about this new policy. He says, and don’t quote me on that. This does not apply to every country. It does not apply to Canada only few countries. Is this true or is that just something he pulled out of his rear end? A clarification on this, and perhaps some proof would help me with my rebuttal. Thanks in advance
On the JW.org website it is posted under the heading: “Global News”. It sounds as though the HLC brother has some severe cognitive dissonance going on. A quick phone call to the local branch or Hospital Information Services should resolve any question over this matter. However, the JW website is clear about this: https://www.jw.org/en/news/region/global/2026-Governing-Body-Update-2/