Blood, Medicine and Jehovah's Witnesses

A Sunday Telegraph article in December 1994 reported claims that "many surgeons had a far too cavalier attitude to the use of blood" and "if blood were a drug, it would not get a licence". The article was prompted by a Hepatitis C scare. In early 1995 it was widely reported in the U.K. press and TV that up to 3000 persons may be at risk from hepatitis C from blood that had not been properly screened and treated in the 1980s. Persons were finally being contacted by the health authorities. At the time of writing (1995) it is being alleged that there had been a "cover up" on the part of the authorities.

This is worrying information indeed. Enough to possibly make one investigate further, or to even think twice before accepting a non essential blood transfusion as part of a routine medical procedure, especially if there were acceptable and available alternatives.

However, this document is primarily concerned with "danger to life" - the situation where the medical opinion requires that a transfusion is essential and any delay (in order to seek alternatives) is an unacceptable risk to the patient

Even in the case of the majority of routine operations and surgical procedures not normally needing any blood, there is always a chance that a complication will arise, (haemorrhaging for example) necessitating an unexpected transfusion. That is why many surgeons are reluctant to "go in with half a tool-kit" because of a "no blood" request by the patient or the patient's guardian. Doctors and Surgeons are under oath to provide the best possible care that they can in the given circumstances. Time is often a crucial factor. They do their best with the information, knowledge and equipment at their disposal.

Witnesses need to be fully aware of how their organisation has developed it's beliefs. An average Jehovah's Witness will have attended many meetings every week where regularly their organisation - the WBTS's view of what the Bible says about blood will have been emphasised. Rarely, even for the purposes of balance, are they shown the "other side of the fence" in any detail. Never is anything critical of their position ever published. If a Witness is to see an alternative viewpoint on the outcome of their position with regard to blood, it will usually come from reading newspaper reports about the resultant tragedies.