Jehovah’s Witnesses adjust blood policy to allow members blood use in medical care

Jehovah’s Witnesses has revised its long-standing policy on blood transfusions, now permitting members to have their own blood removed, stored, and later reinfused during medical procedures.

The update allows adherents to undergo procedures such as planned surgeries where their own blood can be used. However, the group maintains its prohibition against receiving blood from other individuals.

The announcement was made by Gerrit Lösch, a member of the movement’s governing leadership, who said, “each Christian must decide for himself how his blood will be used in medical and surgical care”.

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

The organisation has historically opposed blood transfusions, citing biblical teachings which it says instruct believers to abstain from blood. Despite the recent change, it insists its core doctrine remains intact.

“Our core belief regarding the sanctity of blood remains unchanged,” a spokesperson said.

The revision has drawn mixed reactions, with some former members arguing that it does not go far enough.

One former member, Mitch Melon, told the LA Times that the change still limits critical medical options 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 has also featured in legal disputes. In December last year, a court in Edinburgh ruled that doctors could administer a blood transfusion to a 14-year-old Jehovah’s Witness if it became necessary following surgery.

Although the teenager had declined consent based on her religious beliefs, lawyers for a Scottish health board sought legal approval to proceed if her life was at risk. The court granted the request, with Judge Lady Tait stating that the decision was in the child’s best interests while giving due consideration to her views.