Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to receive a blood transfusion for a patient, even if it leads to death!!
In Comparative Theology
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to receive blood transfusions for a patient, even if this leads to death!!
They forbid it, even during a serious surgical operation.
Once, a little girl needed a blood transfusion or she would die. Her father said, “Let her die; let the will of God be done. We will not break the law!”
At first, American courts ruled against them, in order to protect lives. But now, there are many rulings in their favor. Judges say that a person is the master of their own body, and if mentally competent, may expressly refuse surgery intended to save their life. Doctors in such cases cannot force a blood transfusion, otherwise they face legal consequences.
A decision by the Supreme Court in Kansas declared that the law does not permit a doctor to impose his opinion on a patient by any form of deceit. He must not secretly transfuse blood while the patient is under anesthesia. The doctor’s judgment is subject to the patient’s will.
What is strange about their refusal of blood transfusion is that they claim this is a teaching of the Holy Bible! Yet, all the verses they rely upon prohibit eating blood (i.e., drinking it), not transfusing blood through the veins (such as by injection).
They rely on God’s words in Genesis 9:3–4, after the Ark came to rest:
“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”
This means that humans must not eat raw meat containing blood, nor drink blood as some cults like the hippies and Beatles once did. Drinking or eating blood leads to savagery.
They also refer to Leviticus 17:10–14:
“Any man… who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people; for the life of the flesh is in the blood… And whoever hunts and catches any animal or bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust… You shall not eat the blood of any flesh.”
Clearly, this concerns the blood of animals or birds offered as sacrifices or used for food. God forbids eating blood, but there is no commandment about medical transfusion of blood.
They also cite Leviticus 3:17:
“You shall not eat any fat or any blood.”
But they do not forbid eating fat!
They add Deuteronomy 12:23–24:
“Be sure that you do not eat the blood… Do not eat it; pour it out on the ground like water.”
And 1 Samuel 14:32, 34, where the people sinned by eating meat with the blood.
They also refer to Acts 15:28–29, where Gentile converts were told:
“To abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”
They comment that eating blood was equated with idolatry and immorality.
Jehovah’s Witnesses developed their argument further, saying:
“Though intravenous transfusion was not practiced then, the Bible foresaw and addressed modern medical methods in principle (!!).”
They claim there is no real difference between taking blood through the mouth and taking it through the veins (!!).
They argue that a person can be nourished orally or intravenously—with glucose, for example—so introducing blood into the body, whether through the mouth or veins, breaks God’s law, even if refusal leads to death for themselves or their children. They say they are ready to die to keep this commandment, likening themselves to martyrs!
They condemn any doctor or hospital official who gives them blood, saying such a person bears guilt before God. They say:
“A doctor must treat the patient according to the patient’s faith, and must not impose his own convictions.”
They willingly sign legal documents relieving medical staff from concern and take personal responsibility for their refusal of blood. Most of them carry a signed card stating “No Blood Transfusion.” This document acknowledges their understanding and acceptance of the consequences. If unconscious after an accident, the card makes their position clear. Their voluntary acceptance of responsibility protects doctors legally and ethically.
They base this on the principle of human self-determination.
Their document explicitly requests no blood or its derivatives during hospitalization, even if doctors deem it necessary to preserve life or promote recovery.
They write:
“I hereby release the attending physician and hospital staff from any consequences resulting from my refusal of blood or its derivatives.”
This must be dated and signed by the patient, witnesses, and a close relative such as a spouse or parent.
As one American judge said, such a document “removes the possibility of criminal charges against the doctor.”
They claim:
“It is unethical for a doctor to deceive a patient and give blood against his will, even for his benefit.”
“Transfusing blood against a patient’s wishes could expose the doctor to charges of assault or professional misconduct.”
“It is morally repugnant to deceive anyone, even for their good.”
They say the doctor has a fiduciary relationship founded on trust, and must never mislead the patient, neither by word nor by silence, about the nature or kind of medical procedure undertaken.
They also insist that refusing a transfusion should not be used as an excuse for medical abandonment.
If a doctor deems a transfusion essential but the patient refuses, the doctor must not abandon them but must do all possible to treat them and seek alternatives. They even propose some alternative methods to transfusion.
Though some accuse them of attempting suicide when they refuse lifesaving transfusions, they deny this, saying they do not want to die since they accept any alternative treatment. Yet doctors often find no real substitutes for transfusion—something still under medical study.
They claim that humans are masters of their own bodies, free to accept or refuse treatment.
But we respond that a person’s freedom over their body is not absolute. One may not harm it through drugs, smoking, or alcohol, nor neglect health rules or disease prevention. Our bodies are a trust given to glorify God, as the Apostle said:
“Glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
The same applies to children—their bodies are entrusted to their parents.
A father cannot refuse a blood transfusion for his sick child leading to death and say, “I am the master of my child’s body; I have the freedom to decide his fate!!”
Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their pamphlet on blood, also mention the health risks of transfusion—such as hepatitis C or AIDS transmission through contaminated blood.
But, of course, blood must be properly screened before transfusion; otherwise, the doctor and hospital bear responsibility.
By the logic of Jehovah’s Witnesses, should people also stop treating their teeth because infections might spread from unsterilized dental instruments?!
As for the biblical verses they rely upon, they do not concern blood transfusion or preservation of life. We must not interpret God’s commandments literally but understand their spiritual meaning.
Though the literal sense does not support their belief at all, Scripture says:
“Not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).
And,
“I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13).
It is not merciful to let a person die or to confuse people about their medical treatment because of the phrase “Do not eat blood,” when the issue is not eating but healing. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation departs even from the letter of Scripture.
Note:
Their doctrine of refusing blood transfusion first appeared in an article in their magazine Awake! on May 22, 1951.
Then they published a small book titled Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood.
They also issued a colored booklet titled How Can Blood Save Your Life?
The ideas presented in this article are taken from the latter two sources.
We present this topic to readers and welcome their comments.
For better translation support, please contact the center.
