After How Many Deaths? Reaction Trail Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Directive On Blood Transfusion For Members
Nigerians have taken to social media to question the latest directive by the Jehovah’s Witnesses allowing individual members to decide whether to accept or donate four major blood components based on personal conscience.
The development, which represents a significant adjustment to the religious organisation’s long-standing position on blood, has sparked mixed reactions, with some Nigerians questioning why the decision was not made earlier.
As previously reported, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses announced that its members can now personally decide whether to accept or donate red blood cells, white blood cells, plasma and platelets.
The organisation, however, stressed that its long-standing refusal of whole-blood transfusions remains unchanged.
According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the decision regarding the four major blood components is now a matter of individual conscience between each member and God.
The organisation also said members could decide whether to donate blood for the purpose of producing components or fractions that may be used to treat another person.
Paul Gillies, an international spokesman for Jehovah’s Witnesses at the organisation’s World Headquarters in Warwick, New York, said blood remained sacred to members.
“Blood remains sacred to Jehovah’s Witnesses, who continue to regard life and blood as precious gifts from God,” Gillies said.
He added that local congregations would not interfere in individual decisions concerning the four blood components.
The clarification has, however, prompted strong reactions from Nigerians online, particularly over the potential impact of the organisation’s previous position on members who required blood transfusions.
One social media user, Dhaayvies Harbymborlah Susie, simply asked: “After how many deaths?”
Richard Abuchi questioned the basis of the change, writing: “Meaning their god changed his mind.”
Chi Queen drew comparisons with changes in the practices of other religious organisations, saying: “I know that if Deeper Life can later watch TV, they must accept blood and Reverend Father go marry someday. Nature got its own rules and you must abide by it.”
Another user, Lucky, wrote: “After thousands of people are gone, if religion no kill you, thank God.”
Ndoma advised religious adherents to prioritise the Bible over church doctrines, saying: “No matter your religion, don’t follow church doctrine, follow the Bible.”
Chioma Chukwuemeka expressed sympathy for those she believed may have lost their lives as a result of previous restrictions.
“My heart goes out to all those who have already lost their lives because of these policies,” she wrote.
She argued that people should value their lives and not allow religious institutions or individuals to determine whether they should receive potentially life-saving treatment, noting that policies could change while those who had already died could not return.
Similarly, Chidinma Obele questioned the basis of the original position on blood transfusion.
“Whose directive was it for their members to not take blood transfusions in the first place? God? So what changed?” she asked.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that their latest clarification does not amount to a reversal of their position on whole-blood transfusions.
The organisation said its position is based on its interpretation of the biblical command to “abstain from blood”, while decisions concerning the four major blood components are now left to individual conscience.
The development is likely to continue generating debate, particularly among Nigerians who have followed the religious group’s position on blood transfusion and its implications for medical treatment.
