Isaac died refusing blood; 23 days later, the rule changed

In August this year, 26-year-old Isaac Valdez was browsing in his local library when he had an epileptic seizure. He convulsed and struck his head against the ground, losing consciousness. In hospital it emerged that he had hit his head with such force it had caused a brain haemorrhage.

Treatment was seriously complicated by one fact. As a Jehovah's Witness, Isaac carried a 'No Blood' card, indicating that he would not accept treatment involving any form of blood transfusion because of his religious beliefs. As a result, a procedure to drain fluid from his brain did not take place.

His family, from Waxahachie, Texas, were encouraged when Isaac regained consciousness and even started to talk again. He was able to confirm that he stood by his 'no blood' beliefs. But the family's relief was short-lived. Isaac slipped into a coma and his condition worsened rapidly. A neurosurgeon told the family the only way to save his life was an emergency operation, but one that required blood transfusion. The family took the decision to abide by Isaac's wishes as a lifelong Witness not to accept such a procedure. Isaac died on 26 August 2026 when doctors turned off his life support. His twin brother Jacob Valdez describes Isaac as an intelligent man who loved volunteering and helping the elderly.

Just 23 days later, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body announced a seismic change in teaching that would, in effect, have given Isaac the religious green light to have the life-saving treatment he had refused. The change suddenly means the vast majority of medical procedures using donated blood are no longer prohibited, and decisions on whether to accept such treatments are now left to individuals.

Jacob, already dealing with the death of his twin, was angered that the leadership had not come to its conclusion sooner. He believes Isaac could well still be alive if the change had come earlier.

The original rule on blood transfusions dates back to 1945. The leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses announced that believers were not permitted to accept transfusions, based on their interpretation of Bible verses from both the Old and New Testaments prohibiting the consumption of blood, including one from the Book of Acts that instructs believers to abstain from blood, from food offered to idols, and from things that had been strangled.

Paul Gillies, the Jehovah's Witnesses international spokesperson, said the change is basically the application of Bible principles to modern medicine and its methods, describing it as both a fresh look at scripture and at medical advances. Gillies insists the basic teaching has not changed and that the transfusion of whole blood is still prohibited. However, for decades, most transfusions have not used whole blood, instead using the specific components of blood that a patient needs.

The change is being justified by permitting the use of blood components, like plasma and red blood cells and platelets, in the huge numbers of medical procedures that were previously banned. Gillies says the Bible references 'abstaining from blood' but not 'various components that could be extracted from blood'.

That explanation has stunned many and led them to ask whether it was not a huge overreach 81 years ago to ban blood transfusions in the first place, when transfusions are not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Others are asking why it has taken so long to come to this landmark decision, given that transfusions that do not use whole blood have been the norm for decades.

Jacob, who had already left the Jehovah's Witness faith he was brought up in, texted prominent figures from Isaac's congregation in Texas after Isaac's death. He asked them to consider 'the part you played in encouraging so many people to sacrifice their life for something that was never God's will'. Most did not reply, but one 'elder' responded saying he could not understand why Jacob was so angry and fixated on the policy shift.

Jacob particularly wants the faith's decision-makers to be accountable for all the lives lost. He said, 'I want to ask them if they could apologise directly, I would like not to have a deflected answer, just straightforward apology.'

It is extremely difficult to say how many Jehovah's Witnesses, among the estimated nine million followers of the faith worldwide, died each year having refused treatment involving blood transfusions. But research published in a medical journal in 2016 put the figure at around 1,100.

Gillies said, 'We're sympathetic to their feelings, and if individuals have lost family members and are concerned about some of these questions, they deserve to be heard compassionately.' But there was little clarity about why the change did not come earlier. Asked about calls for the leadership to apologise, Gillies deflected, saying many lives had in fact been saved because faithful Jehovah's Witnesses had not been exposed to blood contamination scandals. He also insisted that even after the new edict, some Jehovah's Witnesses could still decide they did not want to accept a transfusion.

The BBC spoke with Alex Ball, 58, a Jehovah's Witness from West Sussex, who says in 2012 a doctor told him he would not survive the chemotherapy he needed to treat his blood cancer unless he also had a transfusion. With help from what is called a 'Jehovah's Witness Hospital Liaison Committee', Alex found an American consultant who could perform a treatment to boost his blood cells without the need for any products from someone else. His UK consultant agreed to treat him using the new method and it worked.

More than a decade later, Alex says he would make the same decision again, despite the change in blood policy that would have permitted the transfusions he had been told he needed. Receiving blood was not the only issue. Elisha Cummings, 50, a Jehovah's Witness from Trinidad and Tobago, was unable to donate blood to her aunt Eva, who died, because of the rules. It also cost her her marriage: her husband of 10 years left the faith and divorced her after it came to light that he had had a blood transfusion as a child. Elisha says, 'Since the blood policy change, I have not been myself. It left me in a sort of depressed mode.' She says her beliefs as a whole have been shaken, yet she feels reluctant to leave the faith, partly because it is what provides her with her community and she fears isolation.

In the past, those who disagreed with the 'blood doctrine' were ostracised or felt they needed to leave the faith. Will they now be able to come back? Gillies said, 'Any individual that wants to come back to the faith is warmly welcomed.'