Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions - Acceptance Among Jehovah's Witnesses

Acceptance Among Jehovah's Witnesses

The Watch Tower Society acknowledges that some Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with its doctrinal position on blood, and that it has received requests from members that the doctrine be changed to sanction medical transfusion of donor blood. In 1958, The Watchtower reported of a particular member of Jehovah's Witnesses who voluntarily accepted blood transfusion, contrary to Watchtower doctrine, alluding to the possibility that it was not an isolated event. The organization further confirms members have accepted blood transfusions despite initiation in 1961 of a communal shunning policy for willful acceptance.

Since the elaboration of the blood doctrine to the point of prohibiting transfusion, the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses have adopted the organization's position. Those Jehovah's Witnesses who accept the blood doctrine are typically fervent in their conviction. However, the blood doctrine has not attained universal acceptance among Jehovah's Witnesses; there remains a sizable minority of Jehovah's Witnesses who do not fully agree with the blood doctrine. In 1982, a peer-reviewed case study of a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses was undertaken by Drs. Larry J. Findley and Paul M. Redstone to evaluate individual belief in respect to blood among Jehovah's Witnesses. The study showed that 12% were willing to accept transfusion therapy forbidden by Jehovah's Witness doctrine. One peer-reviewed study examining medical records indicated a similar percentage of Jehovah's Witnesses willing to accept blood transfusions for their children. Young adults also showed a willingness to accept blood transfusions. In another study, Jehovah's Witness patients presented for labor and delivery showed a willingness to accept some form of blood or blood products. Of these patients, 10 percent accepted whole blood transfusion.

In the August 1998 issue of Academic Emergency Medicine, Donald Ridley, a Jehovah's Witness and organization staff attorney, argued that carrying an up-to-date Medical Directive card issued by the organization indicates that an individual personally agrees with the established religious position of Jehovah's Witness. However, the organization has issued letters expressing serious concern regarding Jehovah's Witnesses activating and maintaining these documents. One letter cites reports that up to 50% of Jehovah's Witnesses had failed to maintain up-to-date Medical Directive cards, with the result that individual Witnesses were not protected from routine transfusions. Another letter reports that a large majority of Jehovah's Witnesses had not filled out the pre-formatted durable power of attorney document provided by the Watch Tower Society.

Watch Tower publications have noted that within religions, the personal beliefs of members often differ from official doctrine. Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses acceptance of the organization's official position on blood, Drs Cynthia Gyamfi and Richard Berkowitz state, "It is naïve to assume that all people in any religious group share the exact same beliefs, regardless of doctrine. It is well known that Muslims, Jews and Christians have significant individual variations in their beliefs. Why should that not also be true of Jehovah's Witnesses?"

Ambivalence and rejection of the blood doctrine dates back to at least the 1940s. After the Watch Tower Society established the doctrine, teaching that blood should not be eaten (circa 1927-31), Margaret Buber, who was never a member of the religion, offered a firsthand eyewitness account of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Nazi Ravensbrück concentration camp. She relates that an overwhelming majority were willing to eat blood sausage despite having alternate food to choose from, and specifically after considering biblical statements regarding blood.