Jehovah’s Witnesses ease policy on transfusions, allowing storage and use of one’s own blood

Leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses are changing their ban on receiving blood transfusions for religious reasons, now allowing members to decide whether or not to allow their own blood to be drawn and stored in advance for operations such as elective surgery that carry a risk of significant blood loss.

But the organization maintains its broader ban on receiving transfusions of others’ blood — a procedure commonly used with patients after accidents, violence or other blood loss. This long-standing ban is one of the most distinctive and controversial teachings of the movement, headquartered in New York state and well known for its outspoken public proselytizing.

The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses on Friday announced what it called a “clarification” of its teaching, saying it came after much prayer and reflection.

“Every 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 one’s own blood to be collected, stored and then returned to them. What does this mean? Some Christians may decide that they would allow their blood to be stored and then returned to them, others may object.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses, which 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 Bible prophecy. They are almost alone in having their beliefs regarding blood transfusions. Jehovah’s Witnesses reported a membership of 1.3 million in the United States in 2025, with a worldwide membership of 9.2 million in more than 200 countries and territories.

News of the impending policy change was leaked in recent days on Reddit and other social media forums for former Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Some former members — who criticize the religious organization’s policies and say they are insular and authoritarian — say the policy change has some value but is inadequate. Many commentators have questioned why the ban on transfusions has not been lifted entirely for one of the same reasons cited by Lösch regarding the use of one’s own blood, namely that the Bible makes no comment on this.

“I don’t think it goes far enough, but it’s a significant change,” said Washington State’s Mitch Melin, a former member who has worked to raise awareness of what he calls the “dark side” of the organization. The long-standing blood policy has led to “senseless loss of life,” he said.

Melin said those who defy such a policy “could be rejected” by the Church.

“They bring it back to a question of conscience when it comes to your own blood,” he said in an email. “In my view, this does not go far enough. If one of Jehovah’s Witnesses experiences a medical emergency resulting in significant blood loss, or if a child requires multiple transfusions to treat certain types of cancer, this policy change does not grant them complete freedom of conscience to accept potentially life-saving interventions involving blood donation.”

He also noted that in a global church, many members live in countries that do not have access to providers who can store their own blood.

Autologous blood is blood donated by a patient who can collect it if a transfusion is needed during or after surgery. Medical experts say blood can be collected 6 weeks to 5 days before surgery. It is discarded if it is not needed during or after surgery. This can be done at some hospitals or blood banks.

Donating your own blood can make a person anemic or have a lower blood count, experts warn. But the risk of a reaction is lower because your body recognizes your own blood and there is no risk of contracting an infectious disease from another donor.

The historical teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses on blood transfusions come from biblical passages requiring believers to “abstain… from blood”, which they interpret as applying not only to food but also to transfusions. Although they teach that many dietary laws detailed in the Old Testament portion of the Bible no longer apply, they assert that this prohibition on taking blood is considered a universal principle for believers in other passages of the Bible.

The organization has analyzed the implications of this teaching in the past. For example, it has already been determined that medical procedures that temporarily remove blood but quickly reinject it into the body – such as kidney dialysis, in which blood is filtered of its impurities – are acceptable. But they had made the distinction between drawing the blood and storing it for an extended period before returning it.

In 2000, an official publication, The Watchtower, stated: “We therefore do not donate blood, nor do we store our blood for transfusion. This practice is in conflict with God’s law.”

Lösch did not detail what motivated the organization’s change in position. He discussed the growing number of medical interventions available, although blood transfusions have long been used. He stated that “the Bible makes no comment on the use of a person’s blood in medical and surgical care.”

In a press release, Jehovah’s Witnesses stressed that their “fundamental belief regarding the sanctity of blood remains unchanged.” They said many medical providers were following member health care guidelines.

___

AP Medical and Science Reporter Laura Ungar contributed.

___

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.