Re: Faith held by Jehovah's Witnesses does not always forbid blood transfusions.

Abstract

To the Editor; It appears that Dr Harrison confuses official church doctrine with ‘family values and religious beliefs’ (1). This mistake presents a false and perilous premise for medical ethical deliberations. Families among Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) do not form and maintain a doctrine forbidding themselves from conscientiously accepting transfusion of blood or else they are “choosing not to be members of the church and its community” (1). Rather, it is an elite religious hierarchy (‘governing body’) that makes and enforces this doctrine, including the caveat that to accept blood is an act of disassociation (2). Contrarily, there is evidence demonstrating that a considerable number of JWs do not fully accept this doctrine (3,4). Drs Gyamfi and Berkowitz state that, “it is naive to assume that all people in any religious group share the exact same beliefs, regardless of doctrine… Why should that not also be true for Jehovah’s Witnesses?” (5). Official church doctrine should never be confused with personal belief. Before 1945, there was no evidence suggesting that the general population of JWs held a taboo against blood transfusion and, in fact, the governing body at the time expressed praise when relating experiences in which allogeneic blood was used to save lives (6). In 1945, the governing body then taught that it was morally wrong to accept blood transfusions. In 1961, this doctrine began to be enforced under the pain of organized shunning (7). Speaking retrospectively and specifically about its blood taboo, in 1966, the governing body put it bluntly to the JW community by reminding them of the “placing of additional obligations on each [Jehovah’s Witness] individually” (8). The governing body placed these obligations. No measurable, prevailing, communal view of JWs asked for it. This shunning imposes a duty to conform so extreme that JWs are required to refrain from even private spiritual socializing with a family member who has conscientiously accepted a forbidden blood product (9). Extreme pressure to conform in the face of such a threat to social and family support is unavoidable, and should be realized by judges, clinicians, social workers and ethicists. Members of the Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood encourage doctors to treat patients as those patients want to be treated, rather than treating them as a religion would want them treated.