The leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses has revised its long-standing teaching on blood transfusions, allowing members to make personal decisions about receiving certain blood components in medical treatment, weeks after a 26-year-old member died following his refusal of a life-saving procedure, according to a report by the BBC.
The change, announced on 18 September 2026, came 23 days after Isaac Valdez, a Jehovah’s Witness from Waxahachie, Texas, died after refusing an emergency operation that required a blood transfusion.
Valdez suffered an epileptic seizure in a local library in August, during which he struck his head against the ground. The injury caused a brain haemorrhage that required urgent medical attention.
However, his religious beliefs complicated the treatment. As a Jehovah’s Witness, Valdez carried a “No Blood” card indicating his refusal to accept blood transfusions.
His family initially hoped he would recover after he regained consciousness and began speaking again. He also reaffirmed his decision not to accept blood transfusions.
But his condition deteriorated, and doctors later informed his family that an emergency operation involving a blood transfusion was the only way to save his life.
His family respected his wishes, and he died on 26 August after doctors withdrew life support.
His twin brother, Jacob Valdez, told BBC News that he believes Isaac might still be alive if the religious leadership had changed its position earlier.
Jehovah’s Witnesses revise decades-old teaching
The blood transfusion prohibition dates back to 1945, when the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses declared that members should not accept blood transfusions.
The teaching was based on the group’s interpretation of biblical passages that instruct believers to abstain from blood.
One of the passages is Acts 15:28-29, which calls on Christians to abstain from blood, food sacrificed to idols and meat from strangled animals.
For decades, the teaching was understood to prohibit blood transfusions, including the use of individual blood components in medical procedures.
However, the Governing Body, the religious leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses based in New York state, has now announced a change that allows members to decide whether to accept treatments involving blood components such as plasma, red blood cells and platelets.
The use of whole blood remains prohibited.
Paul Gillies, an international spokesperson for Jehovah’s Witnesses, said the decision followed a fresh examination of biblical principles and developments in modern medicine.
Speaking to BBC News at the organisation’s UK headquarters in Essex, Gillies said the change was intended to avoid extending biblical instructions beyond what the scriptures explicitly state.
He argued that while the Bible instructs believers to abstain from blood, it does not specifically address the individual components that can be extracted from it.
The explanation has, however, raised questions among some former members and families affected by the previous policy.
Critics have questioned why the prohibition was introduced in the first place, given that blood transfusions are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and why the leadership took decades to revise its position despite advances in medical treatment.
Family seeks accountability
Jacob Valdez, who had already left the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, has criticised the religious leadership over the timing of the policy change.
Following his brother’s death, he contacted prominent members of Isaac’s congregation in Texas, questioning their role in encouraging members to refuse blood transfusions.
In messages shared with BBC News, Jacob expressed anger over what he described as the loss of lives because of a religious teaching that was later revised.
He said he wanted the leadership to acknowledge the consequences of the previous policy and issue a direct apology to affected families.
“I want to ask them if they could apologise directly,” he told BBC News, adding that he wanted a straightforward response rather than an explanation that avoided responsibility.
Gillies said the organisation sympathised with families who had lost loved ones and acknowledged that their concerns deserved to be heard compassionately.
However, he did not offer an apology on behalf of the leadership.
He also argued that the previous teaching had helped save lives by protecting members from blood contamination scandals.
The exact number of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have died after refusing blood transfusions remains difficult to establish.
A 2016 study published in the medical journal Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey estimated that approximately 1,100 Jehovah’s Witnesses died annually after refusing blood transfusions.
Gillies said the latest change does not mean every member will accept blood components, adding that individuals retain the right to make their own medical decisions.
He also maintained that the revision did not represent a fundamental change in the faith’s teachings, but rather a different application of biblical principles to modern medicine.
