In my view, the Governing Body’s new stance that blood components are now allowed is like opening Pandora’s box. This is not just a change of doctrine; it is a matter of life and death. I anticipate a lot of lawsuits because of the consequences of the previous prohibition, and there may even be some unrest in the congregations.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST BLOOD COMPONENTS
Taking blood from other persons into one’s body can cause harm by transmitting diseases and harming one’s immune system. There is no doubt that avoiding blood has protected the health of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
But what about the negative effects, including death, by refusing blood transfusions? During the 20 years I was a member of the Hospital Liaison Committee in Oslo, there were just two Witnesses in Norway who died but may have survived by receiving blood. I am not speaking of persons who are terminally ill, for example, with leukemia, who can prolong their lives for a short time by receiving blood. But I speak of acute illness or operations.
One of the Witnesses who died needed platelets. I contacted the Hospital Services in Brooklyn by telephone, but the brothers could not help. At that time, experiments with thrombopoietin to boost platelet production were performed. The professor who treated the brother contacted colleagues in two other countries asking for experimental thrombopoietin serum, but without success. So, the brother died.
The members of the Governing Body had prohibited the use of platelets and, therefore, they indirectly bore the responsibility for the brother’s death.
Another bad effect of the prohibition against blood fractions that few Witnesses are aware of is the less effective treatment Witnesses get in connection with cancer. Chemotherapy for cancer destroys blood components, and infusion of red blood cells, or white blood cells, or platelets is necessary. When the Witnesses refuse these components, they get a less effective chemotherapy.
The consequence of the prohibition against blood components has led to the shortening of the life of tens of thousands of Witnesses with cancer, and even to the quick death of some.
THE MEANING OF BLOODGUILT AND CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
What is the relation with the prohibition against blood and bloodguilt? The word “bloodguilt” means that a person is liable to give his own life because one has violated the sanctity of blood, as we see in Genesis 9:5, 6:
5 And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. 6 Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man.
In his presentation in Update #6, 2026, Geoffrey Jackson discussed the new view of blood components. In connection with the violation of the sanctity of blood, he said:
It includes bloodguilt caused by murder or by careless or reckless conduct that could result in the loss of life.
The issue of bloodguilt was discussed in Awake! of October 22, 1970, in the article: “You must not murder.” Examples of bloodguilt caused by “criminal negligence” are given on page 27:
Then again, the Mosaic law held that death resulting from criminal negligence incurred bloodguilt, and logically so. For example, if a bull gored a man to death the bull was killed. But if its owner knew that his bull was a gorer and he failed to keep it under restraint, both the bull and its owner paid with their lives.
Jackson’s words about “careless or reckless conduct that could result in the loss of life” are defined in the Watchtower literature as “criminal negligence.”
The Watchtower of September 15, 2006, page 30, discusses the situation when a brother kills a man with his car. If the driver was speeding or he had been drinking alcohol, he may have bloodguilt. The article says:
If bloodguilt is established, a judicial committee should be formed.
This means that acquiring bloodguilt is a disfellowshipping offense.
ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY GUILTY OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE?
As long as the Bible Students and Jehovah’s Witnesses have existed, they have accepted the sanctity of blood. If a Witness violated the sanctity of blood, he or she would not be punished. However, that changed in 1961 when taking blood into the body became a disfellowshipping offense. We read in The Watchtower of January 15, 1961.page 63:
In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation?
The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes.
Accepting one of the main components of blood is included in the prohibition. But now, taking blood components into one’s body is allowed. Three scriptures were used by Jackson to justify the new view of blood components:
Galatians 6:5
5 For each one will carry his own load.
1 Corinthians 4:6:
6 Now, brothers, these things I have transferred so as to apply to myself and A·polʹlos for YOUR good, that in our case YOU may learn the [rule]: “Do not go beyond the things that are written,” in order that YOU may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other.
2 Corinthians 1:24
24 Not that we are the masters over YOUR faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by [YOUR] faith that YOU are standing.
In his presentation, Geoffrey Jackson said:
However, since the Scriptures don’t comment on the various products that may be derived from blood, we recognize that in harmony with 1 Corinthians 4:6 we are not authorized to go beyond the things that are written. We also recognize what is stated at 2 Corinthians 1:24, “Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for YOUR joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.”
What is particularly interesting about Jackson’s words is that he admits the prohibition against red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets has no basis in the Bible. This means that for 65 years, the members of the Governing Body have been “the masters over your faith” and have gone “beyond the things that are written.” But now they have changed their opinion.
I will now to return to the first quotation from Jackson and ask:
- When the members of the Governing Body, without any basis in the Bible, made a prohibition against platelets, with the threat of disfellowshipping for violating the law, and the Norwegian brother followed this law and died because of a lack of platelets, is this “careless or reckless conduct that could result in the loss of life” on the part of the members of the Governing Body?
- When tens of thousands of Witnesses have received inferior chemotherapy for their cancer, and this has shortened their lives, do the members of the Governing Body who caused this have bloodguilt because of “criminal negligence”?
Each reader should consider these questions.
