Leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses are modifying their prohibition 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 such things as a scheduled surgery with a risk of significant blood loss.
But the organization is retaining its wider prohibition against receiving transfusions of others’ blood – a procedure routinely used with patients after accidents, violence or other blood loss. This long-held prohibition is one of the most distinctive and controversial teachings of the movement, which is headquartered in New York state and well-known for its assertive public proselytizing.
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses announced what it called a “clarification” of its teaching on Friday, saying it came after extensive prayer and consideration.
“Each Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be used in all medical and surgical care,” Governing Body member Gerrit Lösch said in a video statement posted Friday on 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, who emerged in 19th-century America, share many Christian beliefs but diverge from most other churches on key theological issues, such as the nature of Jesus and biblical prophecy. They are almost alone in their beliefs about blood transfusions. Jehovah’s Witnesses reported a U.S. membership of 1.3 million in 2025, with a worldwide membership of 9.2 million in more than 200 countries and territories.
Ex-members react to policy shift
News of the imminent policy change leaked out in recent days on Reddit and other social media forums for former Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Some ex-members – who are critical of the religious organization’s policies and assert it is insular and authoritarian – say the policy shift has some value but is inadequate. Many commenters questioned why the ban on transfusions wasn’t lifted entirely for one of the same reasons cited by Lösch regarding the use of one’s own blood, that the Bible doesn’t comment on it.
“I don’t think it goes far enough, but it’s a significant change,” said Mitch Melin of Washington state, a former member who has worked to bring awareness to what he calls the “darker side” of the organization. The longstanding blood policy has led to “senseless loss of life,” he said.
Melin said those who defy such a policy “could be shunned” by the church.
“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.”
He also noted that in a worldwide church, many members live in countries that lack access to providers who could store their own blood.
Using a patient’s own blood for medical treatment
Autologous blood is blood donated by a patient who can receive it back if a transfusion is needed during or after surgery. Medical experts say the blood can be taken from 6 weeks to 5 days before surgery. It’s thrown away if it’s not needed during or after surgery. It can be done at some hospitals or blood banks.
Donating one’s own blood can make a person anemic or have a lower blood count, experts warn. But there’s a lower risk of having a reaction because your body recognizes your own blood, and there’s no risk of contracting infectious disease from a different donor.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ historic teachings on blood transfusions stem from biblical passages requiring believers to “abstain … from blood,” which they interpret as applying not just to food but to transfusions. While they teach that many detailed dietary laws in the Old Testament portion of the Bible no longer apply, they say this prohibition on partaking of blood is upheld as a universal principle for believers in other Bible passages.
The organization has parsed the implications of this teaching in the past. It has previously determined, for example, that medical procedures that temporarily remove blood but quickly return it to the body – such as kidney dialysis, in which blood is filtered of impurities – are acceptable. But they had distinguished that from removing blood and storing it for an extended period before returning it.
In 2000, an official publication, The Watchtower, stated: “Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood. That practice conflicts with God’s law.”
Lösch did not detail what prompted the change in the organization’s stance. He did refer to the increasing types of medical interventions available, although blood transfusions have long been used. He said that “the Bible does not comment on the use of a person’s own blood in medical and surgical care.”
In a press statement, the Jehovah’s Witnesses emphasized that their “core belief regarding the sanctity of blood remains unchanged.” They said many medical providers have been respecting members’ health-care directives.
