Jehovah’s witnesses revise blood transfusion policy

Jehovah’s Witnesses have revised their medical guidance to allow members to use their own stored blood during certain medical procedures.

The update introduces a significant adjustment to long-standing practices, particularly for planned surgeries where a patient’s blood can be removed in advance and later reinfused. However, the group maintains its prohibition on receiving blood from other people.

The change was announced by Gerrit Lösch, a member of the group’s governing body, who underscored the role of personal decision-making in such matters.
“Each Christian must decide for himself how his blood will be used in medical and surgical care,” he said.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian-based religious movement known for its door-to-door evangelism, has about nine million members worldwide, including approximately 144,000 in the United Kingdom.

For decades, the group has opposed blood transfusions based on its interpretation of biblical teachings. According to its doctrine, both the Old and New Testaments “command us to abstain from blood.”

Despite the revision, the organisation insists that its core beliefs remain unchanged.
“Our core belief regarding the sanctity of blood remains unchanged,” a spokesperson said.

The policy shift has, however, drawn mixed reactions, particularly from former members who argue that it does not go far enough in allowing full medical choice.

Mitch Melon, speaking to the LA Times, criticised the move, saying it still limits access to life-saving treatment in emergency situations.
“If one of Jehovah’s Witnesses faces a medical emergency with significant blood loss, or if a child requires multiple transfusions to treat certain types of cancers, this policy change does not grant them complete freedom of conscience to accept potentially life-saving interventions involving donated blood,” he said.

The issue of blood transfusion among Jehovah’s Witnesses continues to raise legal and ethical questions in different jurisdictions, especially in cases involving minors.

In December last year, a court in Edinburgh ruled that doctors could administer a blood transfusion to a teenage Jehovah’s Witness if necessary following a surgical procedure.

The 14-year-old girl had declined consent on religious grounds, but lawyers for a Scottish health authority sought legal backing to proceed if her life was at risk.

The court granted the order, with Judge Lady Tait stating that the decision was in the best interest of the child while “giving appropriate weight to her views.”

The revised policy is expected to reignite debate around the intersection of religious beliefs, medical ethics and patient rights, particularly in emergency care where such decisions can be critical.