Leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses are revising a ban on receiving blood transfusions on religious grounds, now allowing members to decide whether to allow their own blood to be drawn and stored in advance for things like scheduled surgeries that risk massive blood loss.
But the organization retained a broader ban on receiving blood transfusions from others – a procedure routinely used on patients who have been involved in accidents, violence or other incidents of blood loss. The long-standing ban is one of the most unique and controversial teachings of the movement, which is based in New York state and is known for its staunch public persuasion.
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses announced a “clarification” of its doctrine on Friday, saying it came after extensive prayer and consideration.
“Each Christian must decide for himself how his or her blood should be used for all medical and surgical care,” Gerrit Lösch, a member of the Governing Body, said in a video statement posted on the denomination’s website on Friday. “This includes whether to allow his own blood to be taken, stored, and then returned to him. What does that mean? Some Christians may decide to allow their blood to be stored and then returned to them, and others may object.”
Founded in the United States in the 19th century, Jehovah’s Witnesses share many Christian beliefs but disagree with most other churches on key theological issues, such as the nature of Jesus and biblical prophecies. They are almost the only ones who believe in blood transfusions. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, by 2025, the number of members in the United States will reach 1.3 million, and the number of global members will reach 9.2 million, spread over more than 200 countries and regions.
Former members react to policy shift
News of the impending policy change leaked in recent days on Reddit and other social media forums of former Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Some former members, who have criticized the religious group’s policies and claimed it was insular and authoritarian, said the policy shift had some value but was not enough. Many commenters questioned why the ban on blood transfusions was not lifted entirely, and one of the reasons cited by Loesch regarding the use of one’s own blood is that the Bible does not comment on it.
“I don’t think it’s enough, but it’s a significant change,” said Mitch Melin, a former member in Washington state who has worked to bring awareness to what he calls the group’s “dark side.” He said the long-standing blood policy had resulted in a “senseless loss of life”.
Merlin said the church “may shun” those who resist the policy.
“When it comes to your own blood, they soften it into a matter of conscience,” he said in an email. “In my opinion, this is not enough. If a Jehovah’s Witness faces a medical emergency with severe blood loss, or a child requires multiple transfusions to treat certain types of cancer, this policy change does not give them full freedom of conscience to undergo potentially life-saving interventions involving blood donation.”
He also noted that in churches around the world, many members live in countries without access to providers who can store their own blood.
Using the patient’s own blood for medical treatment
Autologous blood is blood donated by the patient that can be withdrawn by the patient if a transfusion is needed during or after surgery. Medical experts say blood can be drawn 6 weeks to 5 days before surgery. If it is not needed during or after surgery, it is thrown away. This can be done at some hospitals or blood banks.
Experts warn that donating your own blood may make a person anemic or have a low blood cell count. But the risk of a reaction is lower because your body can recognize your own blood, and there’s no risk of contracting an infectious disease from another donor.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ historical teaching on blood transfusions stems from biblical passages requiring believers to “abstain from…blood,” which they believe applies not only to food but also to blood transfusions. While they teach that many of the detailed dietary laws found in the Old Testament portion of the Bible no longer apply, they say prohibitions against eating blood in other passages of the Bible are still considered universal principles among believers.
The organization has unpacked the implications of this teaching in the past. For example, it has previously determined that medical procedures that temporarily remove blood but quickly return it to the body, such as kidney dialysis, which filters blood impurities, are acceptable. But they distinguish it from taking blood and storing it for a long time before returning it.
In 2000, the official publication The Watchtower stated: “Therefore, we do not donate blood, nor do we store blood for transfusions. This practice conflicts with God’s law.”
Loesch did not elaborate on what prompted the group to change its stance. He did mention the increasing variety of medical interventions available, although blood transfusions have long been used. “The Bible has no comment on the use of one’s own blood in medical and surgical care,” he said.
In a press statement, Jehovah’s Witnesses emphasized that their “core beliefs regarding the sanctity of blood remain unchanged.” They said many providers have been respecting members’ health care directives.
___
AP medical and science reporter Laura Ungar contributed.
___
AP religion coverage is supported through the AP’s partnership with The Conversation US and grants from the Lilly Endowment Inc. The Associated Press is solely responsible for this content.