Trending 
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have updated their long-standing prohibition on blood transfusions, now allowing members to decide whether to have their own blood drawn and stored in advance for medical procedures, such as scheduled surgeries with a risk of significant blood loss.
The organisation, however, is maintaining its ban on receiving transfusions of others’ blood, a practice routinely used after accidents or other severe blood loss.
The prohibition has long been one of the most distinctive and controversial teachings of the religious movement headquartered in New York state.
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses called the update a “clarification” of its teaching on Friday after extensive prayer and consideration.
“Each Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be used in all medical and surgical care,” said Governing Body member Gerrit Lösch in a video posted to the denomination’s website.
“This includes whether to allow his own blood to be removed, stored, and then given back to him. What does this mean? Some Christians may decide that they would allow their blood to be stored and then be given back to them, others may object.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses, founded in 19th-century America, have a U.S. membership of 1.3 million and about 9.2 million members worldwide across more than 200 countries and territories.
While they share many Christian beliefs, they diverge from most other churches on key theological issues, especially blood transfusions.
News of the policy shift emerged earlier this week on Reddit and social media forums for former members. Many former members welcomed the change but argued it did not go far enough.
“I don’t think it goes far enough, but it’s a significant change,” said Mitch Melin, a former member from Washington state.
He noted that the long-standing blood policy has led to “senseless loss of life” and that those who defy it could be shunned by the church.
Melin added that the policy may not fully help members in countries lacking medical providers capable of storing their own blood, nor does it allow full freedom to accept transfusions in life-threatening situations, such as serious accidents or treatment for certain cancers.
“They’re softening this to a conscience matter when it involves your own blood,” he said in an email.
“From my perspective, it doesn’t go far enough. 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.”
