Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions

Autologous blood transfusions

I don't normally update Wikipedia, however should this statement "Transfusions of pre-operative self-donated (autologous) blood." be updated? The "2026 Governing Body Update #2" has a "clarification" that moves the designation from prohibited to individual decision. See https://www.jw.org/en/news/region/global/2026-Governing-Body-Update-2/ 14:00

Phrasing the change as a 'clarification' is misleading as storing one's own blood was previously forbidden, and was not in 2000 ambiguously deemed as a 'personal decision' along with other procedures such as blood fractions. As of the current printing of their Bible study textbook Enjoy Life Forever ('Endnotes' on page 255), it states, "There are medical procedures that make use of a patient’s own blood. Some of these—such as a person donating blood or having his own blood stored in advance of surgery—are not acceptable for Christians." It might be best to wait until the change appears in print?—--Jeffro77 Talk 23:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

An editor modified the article to suggest that blood may be stored in case of any future treatment without any specific procedure planned. This has been reverted as it is not medically viable to arbitrarily store one’s own blood indefinitely just in case it’s needed for a future procedure for that individual.—Jeffro77 Talk 08:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Historically the religion prohibited banking of umbilical cord blood because under the then policy a person's blood was to be disposed of. Specifically the religion admonished its adherents to "direct the physician that the placenta and the umbilical cord should be disposed of, not used in any way". But banking umbilical cord blood is a viable and practiced process where the blood is stored for a future use that may or may not ever occur. In essence, its a banking of blood just in case it's needed for a future use. The recent change in doctrinal position no longer prohibits this (or any other) blood donation based on whether it's for a planned or unplanned use. Jeffro, you've been around a long time and know your way around Watchtower material. So I haven't bothered citing sources for you. You know them or how to quickly find the material. If another editor needs reference sources feel free to ask. I'm not tinkering with you article edits because I'm not inclined to fight over this. But it should be accurate. Cord blood is stored for future unplanned needs. That's real. This is just one example demonstrating it's true for this article to say, "On 20 March 2026, the blood transfusion policy was revised, allowing members to have their own blood drawn and stored for any future medical or surgical procedures that may require a transfusion." Oh, and one more thing. Blood is transfused for medical and surgical therapies. Within a hospital settings those are two distinct admissions and both should be acknowledge for accuracy. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

No. Storage of umbilical cord blood for stem cell therapies is an edge case where longer-term storage is viable (because it is the stem cells that are used rather than the blood), but such therapies usually require more than a single cord unit, particularly for adults, and may require multiple donors. Additionally, storing umbilical cord blood for hypothetical future use for stem cell therapy for a child would not be a decision about the use of one’s own blood for oneself. The hypothetical possibility of a particular instance of using one stored umbilical cord or banking cord blood for stem cell therapies does not justify a misleading implication that blood can be arbitrarily stored for extended periods. Jeffro77 Talk 21:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

What part of the banked blood is transfused is of no matter. It could be any product rendered from whatever blood is banked. It could be red cells or it could be stem cells, or it could be something else. The fact that the blood can be banked is the change. What ends up being transfused of that banked blood is not the issue of the change. Additionally, the change has nothing to do with whether a usage of the banked blood is for a planned or unplanned event. It could be either or both. One additional thing, harvesting stem cells from banked cord blood is not edge therapy or technology. It's real and in use now. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s an edge case regarding the change in rules. Cord blood isn’t enough for an adult from one cord and use in a child wouldn’t be a decision about use of the blood for oneself. Beyond that, you are trying to read something into the announcement that is not directly stated, nor is it in the cited source. Just stop.—Jeffro77 Talk 22:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It's your edit that goes beyond the announced change. You qualify the banked blood as "stored in advance of medical procedures" when the announced change contained no such qualification. The announced change is not contingent on when a product from banked blood will be used, or if it ever is needed for use. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. My edit doesn’t go beyond what is stated at all. ‘In advance’ is simply the alternative to ‘at the time of the procedure’. It remains that blood can’t feasibly be banked indefinitely for infusion.—Jeffro77 Talk 03:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to split the hair at issue in the statement we're talking about, plus I'm working on much bigger things. I suppose my thinking on this arose because this article is about the JW religion's position on blood transfusion, and historically part of this religious position explicitly prohibited storing of cord blood. The March 2026 revision changes that position because any decision made by parents for a child are as agents for that child. In effect, the child's decision is in play but because they are a minor the agent that executes that decision has to be a legal guardian. The parent is only standing in for the child just as a court order would do if the parents refused. I do appreciate you're thoughts. As always you are an rigorous editor here, as you should be. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I recommend the following language:

On 20 March 2026, the blood transfusion policy was revised, allowing members to have their own blood drawn and stored for medical or surgical procedures that may require a transfusion. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

That would be okay, but in general terms is covered by ‘medical procedures’ anyway. This isn’t a medical journal.—Jeffro77 Talk 03:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

With this agreement, I'll edit using the recommended language. For anyone in the field of healthcare, saying "medical and surgical" makes a big difference. For lay readers the phrase broadens their view. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I see the article now has this statement:

"On 20 March 2026, the blood transfusion policy was revised, allowing members to have their own blood drawn and stored for medical or surgical procedures that may require a transfusion"

However, under "Prohibited procedures" it says "Transfusions of pre-operative self-donated (autologous) blood." Should this statement be removed? Randyg271 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I have moved it to the other subsection.—Jeffro77 Talk 12:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate the work you and other Wikipedia editors do. Randyg271 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Claim/assert

Is it a good idea to use these verbs rather than "say" or "state"? Shouldn't we replace them per WP:CLAIM? Cathfolant 19:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Some instances should probably be changed. Where a claim is irrefutably wrong, such as the 'claims' by Alonzo Shadman, it is probably better left as a claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "irrefutably wrong." Any statement can be refuted no matter how false or true it may be. The terms "claim" and "assert" are loaded with the connotation that the statement being referred to is inherently NOT based in fact. That, my friend, is POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.188.9 (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Shadman's claim that "poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood" is indeed "NOT based in fact". The naive claim that 'suicide, murder and stealing' are directly triggered by 'poisons' in a person's blood (rather than much more complex neurology) is a fringe theory and should not be presented as if factual. As for other instances, instead of complaining, why don't you bother to actually just change them?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As world-leading neuroendocrinologist I would say he has a point. Hormones are powerful things. But when it comes to religion, the degree to which any statement can be construed in fact is itself widely besides the point. People belief things. Then they make up stories because they hate backing down. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F1DE:5C8E:2E7B:3440 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalized article description

I have noticed that the article description has been vandalized by someone who claims that the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses "do not even give blood to children which I think is crazy". This should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.153.94.28 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are referring to. The article does not contain the stated text, and was not removed in a recent edit. Perhaps you're at the Talk page for the wrong article???--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Or it could have been the Wikidata short description perhaps, that is only shown on mobile (but can also be overriden using {{short description}}, if I remember (and I'm unsure, as the documentation says both can coexist)). Unfortunately, if so, Wikidata has its own patrollers who don't necessarily crossover with en-Wikipedia ones, despite the interwiki damage. —PaleoNeonate – 05:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No {{short description}} template is or was present, and the only unprotected transcluded template does not and did not include the stated text. However, I have just checked the mobile version of the article and the text in question does appear. I will investigate further...--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed I have fixed on WikiData.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Majority minority comment

The following sentence - “Although accepted by the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, a minority does not endorse this doctrine”, along with the Lee Elder ref should be removed.

Who are the minority? Who is Lee Elder?

It seems the only quantifiable way to substantiate who Lee Elder presumes he’s speaking for when he shifts from I to we in his article “Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy” is his reference to “members” of AJWRB. The site has 64 subscribers. There are 8 million Jehovah’s Witnesses. Granting the 64 as Jehovah’s Witnesses which is unlikely, that’s 0.0008% of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide. That’s an infinitesimal, imperceptible comparative amount. That’s a few people not endorsing the doctrine in the US, less than half a person objecting to it in Australia.

The sentence is not factual and misleads the reader. Lee Elder has no known expertise, is not a researchable person nor a reliable secondary source. IC (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Scholars have accepted Lee Elder as a reliable source. See Dr. Zoe Knox, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World, page 179, "It is indeed impossible for the researcher to verify Elder's glaims given the cloak of anonymity, but despite this his insider status is widely accepted by analysts outside the community". She then gives another source (C. O Neill, Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions: An Analysis of the LEgal Protections Afforded to Adults and Children in European/English Human Rights Contexts, European Journal of Health Law [2017]) as an example of other anaylsts. George D. Chryssides (Jehovah's Witnesses Continuity and Change, pg 266) has also referenced Lee Elder. The Elder reference itself was published in a well-respected medical journal, not on the AJWRB website, and meets WP:RS standards.

Your logic is flawed, as using your method you could say that however many people are subscribed to the McDonald's mailing list must mean that that's how many customers eat at their restaurants. Unsurprisingly (as is also stated in the second source for the statement you wish to remove) not many JW's want their opposition to the blood doctrine to be known, so a small "subscriber" count to the AJWRB website is irrelevant. Had the sentence made a specific claim as to what percentage of JW's don't agree, that would be questionable. However, the mere fact that a minority disagree with the blood doctrine is fairly well established by the two sources. Vyselink (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It has been well indicated above that the statement is properly sourced. Additionally, given the risk of death, whether real or imagined, regarding the refusal of treatment with blood products, there is nothing extraordinary about the statement that a minority of JWs do not endorse the policy. Conversely, there is significant social pressure within the Jehovah's Witnesses community to at least give the appearance of accepting the doctrine, as shunning may result from either openly advocating the use of blood (either for 'apostasy' or 'causing divisions' depending on the method and degree) or accepting a blood transfusion (referred to as 'disassociating by their actions' if not deemed 'repentant'), so it is unsurprising that not many members openly advocate for such medical procedures. The statement in question summarises the section, Acceptance among Jehovah's Witnesses, and the material there confirms that the proportion of JWs who are willing to accept blood transfusions is not "an infinitesimal, imperceptible comparative amount".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Virtual person - reliable source, only here. Scholars like Knox & Chryssides have certainly not accepted Lee Elder as a reliable source. Receiving mention is not the same as having been vetted by the author, nor considered by them as a reliable source which is a significant error of oversimplification. The quote from Zoe Knox doesn’t suggest what you think it does. She writes that it’s impossible to verify Lee Elder’s claims. Other analysts recognising his insider status doesn’t negate that impossibility. The law lecturer Dr Clayton O Neill that Knox cites as an analyst, simply writes about him “he (Lee Elder) considers that many Witnesses do not actually support the blood policy”. Putting the unreliability of the source to one side, how many members does Lee Elder speak for? Lee Elder’s claim/s, “some Jehovah’s Witnesses” and then “a significant number” in his article is certainly a primary source that is unverifiable but not unfalsifiable. Here’s how the range of claimed “membership” may be maximally quantifiable and also demonstrates the problematic nature of accepting Lee Elder’s claims. Chryssides references what he considers a dubious 2012 ajwrb survey. Relevant question was “What is your personal stance on blood?” Allegedly 780 jw took part. 151 personally refuse blood. 629 responded rather not say, secretly accept, openly accept. Two points: 1/ Ajwrb’s virtual membership if anything is an infinitesimal, imperceptible minority even from unverifiable & questionable data. 2/ Ajwrb’s extrapolated actual claim is that their dubious survey is representative of all jw, which if accepted, would upend the presently inaccurate sentence and turn an insignificant, imperceptible minority into a significant majority. The Mcdonalds thing is fatuous, hopefully was hyperbolically satirical. Ajwrb members are a virtual community & members/subscribers may be intelligent enough to use pseudonyms.

IC (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Your ongoing red herring about AJWRB is irrelevant. Peer-reviewed studies cited in the section I already mentioned uniformly suggest about 10% of JW members would accept blood transfusions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Then find a source that’s not primary with claims that are not impossible to verify. Have you read the studies, or are you relying on the skewed summary? The following is taken from the concluding comments of the researchers of the first study referenced - “The members of this congregation are adamant in their refusal to accept all blood products and human tissue transplantations. Not one of the members stated they would receive a blood transfusion even if their refusal meant death.” The statement made in the section you’ve referenced is original research - the editor makes a judgement call from the survey responses that the researchers do not. If you wish to extrapolate that three parents of 1,3,17 year olds suffering with cancer accepting a transfusion for their children along with cancer patients aged 19 & 21 accepting transfusions for themselves - 10% among a sample sized study of 58 cancer patients - is representative of 800,000 Jehovah’s Witness members of all ages in all circumstances everywhere being presently willing to accept a blood transfusion, that’s your prerogative but forgive me if I wont join you in such unrestrained speculation. The third study is specific to young pregnant female jw’s, again not representative of jw’s everywhere and in all circumstances. All three studies have a very small sample size, 58,58,61 respectively. It would seem prudent not to extrapolate that a handful of jw in one congregation and highly specified targeted studies are representative of 800,000 jw everywhere and in myriad circumstances. Finally, acceptance of a blood transfusion under considerable stress is not equivalent with objection/opposition to or not endorsing jw teaching on blood. IC (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that you object to the sources provided, but they are peer-reviewed sources and you have provided no reliable sources to the contrary. There is no consensus for the change you wish to make. The findings of the studies are representative of the situations stated, and nowhere does the article categorically claim that it applies to the entire membership (though it is of note that findings across each study are around 10%). I cannot confirm the quote you provided and you'll understand if I don't take your word for it that it is both accurate and not cherry-picked out of context. It would help if you have a link to the full text. The text provided says the details of the members was provided by elders and the study could not be representative of 'less religious' members. Rather than just claiming that this is merely 'an editor summary', it would help to see the actual text the conclusion is based on, rather than only providing elements that you think support your position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you also like me to provide audio versions of the studies? Please, the studies can be found in a few minutes. I understand why you wouldn’t take my word for it since the statement I quoted from the opening sentences of their conclusion/comments, which the editor apparently ignored in favour of gross cherry picking along with misrepresentation & in one case outright misinformation, undermines the premise of the editors assessment and summary of the study. (With all due respect, for someone who’s made thousands of edits on jw, is an intransigent protector of every dot and tittle on jw wiki articles in talk pages, it appears you haven’t read many sources, nor seem inclined to do so) Again, you equivocate and respond to points I didn’t make. You wrote “Peer-reviewed studies cited in the section I already mentioned uniformly suggest about 10% of JW members would accept blood transfusions” Let me slow it down. If the sources you cited from the section “acceptance by jw” don’t support the statement that a minority of Jehovah’s Witnesses do not endorse the blood teaching and Lee Elder is a primary source who’s claims are impossible to verify and in any case dubiously claims the opposite, that a majority of jw’s do not endorse the blood teaching, what is the reliable source for the statement? There is no such source, therefore remove the statement. IC (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, provide audio as well (sigh). Sarcasm aside, how about just providing what the source actually says about how the information about members was obtained, particularly whether congregation elders were aware of the respondents. Otherwise, provide a link to the source material.

It is in fact entirely unremarkable that some members of a religious denomination do not accept all its teachings, so it's not clear why you are so strongly opposed to the notion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Regarding your statement that the article claims "that a majority of jw’s do not endorse the blood teaching", the article makes no such claim, so I assumed you made a typo where you intended minority (though the sources and common sense both support that a minority does not support the doctrine). However, if it was not a typo, you have either misread or misrepresented what the article says.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This will have to be my final bang before it results in an intellectual concussion. I didn’t state that the article claims that a majority of jw don’t endorse the blood teaching. If you checked the various scholars & analyst that have been referred to in this thread you would be aware of where the dubious claim originates. It was also an aside to the main point being made which was already a simplified restatement of arguments presented due to inattention now repeated. You regularly state what you wish to be the case. I’m not strongly opposed to the notion. The notion is not based on reliable sources. The fact that you think the statement is entirely unremarkable and reflects common sense are not supportive arguments. Your rational regression that the targeted studies of jw cancer patients & young pregnant jw support the extrapolated position that a minority of jw do not support the blood teaching is simply baffling. I am opposed to this very small group of editors being loose and fast, oversimplifying wiki requirements for sources. Liberal Elder then Lee Elder - An unknown person with unknown qualifications making unverifiable claims on behalf of unknown persons, accepted as a reliable source, patently absurd. This consistent, unsophisticated approach has resulted in considerable systemic bias throughout articles. A bias you’d be unlikely to be cognisant of since you share it.

(Sigh) Copy below into search engine and follow your nose.

Findley LJ, Redstone PM (March 1982). "Blood transfusion in adult Jehovah's Witnesses. A case study of one congregation". Arch Intern Med. 142 (3): 606–7 IC (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I already tried to find the quote you provided before, but searches for the quote itself yielded 0 results, and the only source for the article I could find is behind a paywall. I'm not interested in a wild goose chase if you already have the material available. Also not interested in your irrelevent personal attacks or attacks on established sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Jeffro, word to the wise: I know from the inside how JW operate. Really, I do. Their favourite topic of discussion is how to f*** with reasonable people like you and "win" discussions. They have no interest in playing things intellectually or morally fair. The big guy is on their side and therefore anything and everything is allowed. You say "It is in fact entirely unremarkable that some members of a religious denomination do not accept all its teachings, so it's not clear why you are so strongly opposed to the notion." Well, it's clear to me. You would have a point if only JW were just a religious denomination. But it is a different beast altogether.2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F1DE:5C8E:2E7B:3440 (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Talk pages are not a soapbox for you to air your grievances about JWs. You don't seem to be suggesting any improvement to article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking

1) Under "History of doctrine", in the third paragraph "Consolation" links to the article-page on "Awake!", while "Consolation" in the fifth paragraph and fifth sentence does not, despite being under the same header.

2) Under "Critical views" and in the second sentence "Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood" does not link to any article-page. ~2026-68312-8 (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

'Allowed' procedures

The section on what procedures are 'allowed' seems a bit more clear and permissive than is actually the case, and some procedures that are not explicitly prohibited are also not clearly stated as permitted in easily accessible JW literature.

Treatment / Procedure	Pre-1945	1945–1961	1961–2000	2000–2025	2026–
Whole blood transfusion	⚪	🔴	🔴	🔴	🔴
Primary components (RBC, WBC, platelets, plasma)	⚪	🔴	🔴	🔴	🔴
Major component derivatives (e.g. cryoprecipitate)	⚪	🔴	🔴	🔴	🔴 / ⚪
Blood fractions (albumin, immunoglobulins, clotting factors)	⚪	🔴	🔴	🟡	🟡
Advanced clotting products (PCC, fibrinogen concentrate)	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟡	🟡
Recombinant (non-blood-derived) factors	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟢	🟢
Whole organ transplants	⚪	⚪	🔴 (1967–1980)	🟡	🟡
Autologous blood storage (PAD)	⚪	🔴	🔴	🔴	🟡
Acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH)	⚪	⚪	🟡	🟡	🟡
Cell salvage (intra/post-op)	⚪	⚪	🟡 (conditional)	🟡	🟡
Extracorporeal circulation (heart-lung machine, ECMO)	⚪	⚪	🟡	🟡	🟡
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) / platelet gel	⚪	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟡
Autologous serum therapies (e.g. eye drops)	⚪	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟡
Epidural blood patch	⚪	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟡
Bone marrow / stem cell transplant	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟡	🟡
Peripheral blood stem cell collection/use	⚪	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟡
Polyclonal antibodies (plasma-derived)	⚪	🔴	🔴	🟡	🟡
Monoclonal antibodies (lab-derived)	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟢	🟢
Convalescent plasma	⚪	🔴	🔴	🔴	🔴
Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOCs)	⚪	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟡
Synthetic oxygen carriers (perfluorocarbons)	⚪	⚪	⚪	🟢	🟢
Lab-grown red blood cells (emerging)	⚪	⚪	⚪	⚪	⚪
Dialysis circuits involving blood priming	⚪	⚪	⚪	⚪	⚪ / 🔴
Non-blood volume expanders (saline, etc.)	🟢	🟢	🟢	🟢	🟢

Legend 🔴 = Explicitly prohibited 🟡 = Conscience-based (officially permitted) 🟢 = Explicitly permitted ⚪ = Not clearly defined / ambiguous

Elements of the table have been autogenerated and are not asserted here to all be definitely correct, and the sources have not been embedded therein. It may also be necessary to omit some procedures listed above if JW use of the procedure has not been mentioned in any secondary or primary sources. Would probably also merge some row cells (e.g. just one 🔴 for 1945-2026- for prohibition of whole blood transfusion). But it's the general idea I have in mind for further discussion.-Jeffro77 Talk 04:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)