2026 Governing Body Update #2

[Barbllm]

5 minutes ago, Ross said:

This is a welcome clarification and makes logical sense as Hemodialysis, Cell Salvage and Blood Patches (and others) are already a conscience matter where the blood leaves the body for a short of time (seconds or mins) storing blood just increases the time it's out of the body it's essentially the same thing.

As far as I can tell, the only reason why autologous transfusion wasn't accepted was because it was stored outside the body for over 24 hours (usually, you donate your own blood up to 7 days pre-surgery). 

[Bob]

I remember reading about this in the Enjoy Life Forever Book (I sat in on a Bible study for a few months with an elder in my congregation). I had to look this up. I found the reference. It's on page 255 under the heading: "Medical Procedures Involving Blood":

 

"There are medical procedures that make use of a patient’s own blood. Some of these—such as a person donating blood or having his own blood stored in advance of surgery—are not acceptable for Christians"

 

This, to me anyway, appears to be a major shift. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Bob

[LeolaRootStew]

54 minutes ago, pholmes38 said:

Now we are not taking the principles of the Mosaic Law as binding, can I now have a tasteful tattoo?

 

Tattoos are already a conscience matter. 

[LeolaRootStew]

1 hour ago, Abigail said:

Possible principle suggestion. Our own blood belongs to us for as long as we are alive. We can do what our conscience allows. This does not extend to any other creature's blood, living or dead. It belongs to them while alive and returns to Jehovah when dead.

 

Thank you, that is actually helpful. Our blood, our life, belongs to us until it returns to Jehovah. We cannot give it or take it from someone else because there is no arrangement where it would belong to someone other than those two parties.

[Abigail]

7 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

Thank you, that is actually helpful. Our blood, our life, belongs to us until it returns to Jehovah. We cannot give it or take it from someone else because there is no arrangement where it would belong to someone other than those two parties.

 

Even better 🥰

[blanchard]

42 minutes ago, Bob said:

This, to me anyway, appears to be a major shift.

I agree "a major shift"

[Dhanyel]

18 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

Tattoos are already a conscience matter. 

Hi, how are you? Who said that? 

[johnnyjw01]

7 minutes ago, Dhanyel said:

Hi, how are you? Who said that? 

Read carefully: https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=502013252&srcid=share

 

Obviously: All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous. 

[AH173]

Looks like it made mainstream news. From ap news. 

 

https://apnews.com/article/jehovahs-witnesses-blood-transfusion-policy-change-3b01d3b095fe895a131633192a774e17

 

[Dhanyel]

This adjustment shows how Jehovah continues to care for us with love and balance. At the same time that he maintains his principles, he also allows us to understand certain matters more clearly over time.

This reminds us that we don’t need to feel insecure or allow doubts to grow. We also should not create different situations or draw conclusions about matters that have not yet had the proper time to be clarified.

Our part is to continue obeying with faith and humility, closely following the direction we receive from Jehovah through the faithful and discreet slave.

[AH173]

2 minutes ago, AH173 said:

Looks like it made mainstream news. From ap news. 

 

https://apnews.com/article/jehovahs-witnesses-blood-transfusion-policy-change-3b01d3b095fe895a131633192a774e17

 

Update, there are former JW's /possibly apostate comments in article. 

[Dré]

A very significant update.

Edited 2 hours ago by Dré

[McKay]

Here's the critical detail, in what I can see:

 

Leviticus is clearly talking about animal blood.

 

Acts is clearly talking about human blood. 

 

It seems clear, from what we know about medicine in the first century, that drinking of blood for ailments was using either animal blood or another person's blood. Since a lot of medicine back then relied upon humorism, it doesn't appear that doctors of the day prescribed one's own blood to cure a problem with your own blood (other than bloodletting or topical application, according to Gemini); they used another person's blood (like the gladiators did) or blood from other organisms.

 

So as long as we avoid animal blood or blood from other people, we are not violating any scriptural principle because neither the Hebrew or Greek scriptures referred to one's own blood in the respective verse's context.

[Dré]

I understand that the focus was on The Watchtower of October 15, 2000.

 

Questions From Readers

In the light of Bible commands about the proper use of blood, how do Jehovah’s Witnesses view medical procedures using one’s own blood?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000767

[Mike047]

Only use of your own blood could meet this revision presented by the GB. Some of the reasons are:

 

No two people have exactly the same blood

In reality, there are over 40 recognised blood group systems and more than 360 known antigens on red blood cells.

Examples:

•              Kell

•              Duffy

•              Kidd

•              MNS

•              Lutheran

•              Lewis

•              P

•              Diego

…and many more.

Each system has multiple variants. The combination of all these antigens creates a profile that is essentially unique.

Even siblings rarely match perfectly.

Genetic variation makes antigen patterns unique

The genes that determine blood antigens have:

•              multiple alleles

•              rare mutations

•              population‑specific variants

•              silent or weakly expressed forms

This means two people with the same ABO type can still differ in dozens or hundreds of antigenic details.

Your plasma composition is also unique

Blood isn’t just red cells. Plasma contains:

•              thousands of proteins

•              antibodies

•              hormones

•              metabolites

•              immune markers

These vary based on:

•              genetics

•              age

•              infections

•              diet

•              environment

•              microbiome

•              medications

•              even stress

So even if two people had identical red‑cell antigens (extremely unlikely), their plasma chemistry would still differ.

 Immune history makes each person’s blood distinct

Your immune system “remembers” what you’ve encountered:

•              viruses

•              bacteria

•              vaccines

•              allergens

•              transfusions

•              pregnancy

This creates a unique antibody profile.

For example, two O‑positive people will have different sets of antibodies depending on their life experiences.

Even identical twins don’t have perfectly identical blood

Identical twins share DNA, but:

•              epigenetic changes

•              somatic mutations

•              different infections

•              different environmental exposures

 

It appears that all people create subtle but real differences in their blood composition. 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Mike047

[LeolaRootStew]

29 minutes ago, McKay said:

Leviticus is clearly talking about animal blood.

 

Acts is clearly talking about human blood. 

 

I've never heard of that. Can you elaborate?

[McKay]

Just now, LeolaRootStew said:

 

I've never heard of that. Can you elaborate?

Thank you for catching that mistake. What I meant was, Leviticus was exclusively talking about animal blood. Acts is obviously repeating the same principle as Leviticus but adding human blood to the prohibition (although since the verse also mentions "things strangled" it could be talking about only animal blood but I'll leave that for the FDS to decide).

[TJ86]

Previously, the main issue was blood transfusions from another person. Now, medicine and technology have advanced again, allowing the use of one's own blood in different forms.

 

This raises the question: if it's my own blood, does it change anything in light of Acts 15?

 

We have the following techniques: extracorporeal circulation, dialysis, and blood recovery.

 

In these cases, the blood is not stored for long periods. It remains in a continuous circuit.

 

Therefore, many understand that there was no “interruption” in the use of blood.

 

Previously, Leviticus 17:13 (pouring out the blood) was used as an indirect basis. But this law is not mandatory for Christians. It was part of the Mosaic Law, and Colossians 2:13, 14 confirms this.

 

So we cannot directly use this text from Leviticus as a rule today.

 

Thus, the question returns to “Abstain from blood.” — Acts 15:29

 

Now the correct question is: Is using one's own blood (even if stored) considered “not abstaining”?

 

This is where the Bible does not provide details.

 

The Bible prohibits eating blood and commands abstention. But it does not explain closed circuits, temporary storage, and the use of one's own blood.

 

So we enter the area of principle + conscience.

 

Essentially, if we no longer apply Leviticus 17 and the blood is my own, and there are accepted uses without storage, then, for the sake of consistency, could storage fall under the same line?

 

This is a logical reasoning. But it is still an inference, not a direct statement from the Bible. Acts 15 remains the central principle, and the Bible does not delve into these technical details; thus, it is a matter of conscience.

[TJ86]

The point is not to “allow” or “prohibit,” and that is not what the Bulletin showed, but to recognize that the Bible provides principles, that not all modern treatments are specified, and some decisions are between the Christian and Jehovah.

 

“Abstain from blood.” — Acts 15:28, 29. This is the fixed principle. That hasn’t changed.

 

But we also have, “Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5

 

This shows that there are areas of Christian conscience.

 

It is not up to appointed men to foresee all advancements in modern science and medicine, nor to create rules for every new situation.

 

The role of the brothers in leading Jehovah's people is to point out biblical principles, not to create legalism.

 

This is in harmony with “Do not go beyond what is written.” — 1 Corinthians 4:6

 

Applying this to the case of blood:

 

Allogeneic transfusion (from another person): clearly involves the use of blood and directly relates to the principle in Acts 15.

 

Autologous transfusion (one's own blood): is a situation that the Bible does not detail and that did not exist until recently.

 

So it is not a matter of universal rule, but of individual conscience before Jehovah.

 

The biblical principles remain the same, as in Acts 15. But since the Bible does not address all the details, especially in modern issues like the use of one's own blood, some decisions become matters of personal conscience. It is not about allowing or prohibiting, but about each person deciding before Jehovah based on the principles.

 

In the end, your decisions will always be between you and Jehovah.

[Dré]

I would like to share a perspective on hemodialysis in Ukraine. Based on the experience of my wife, who has been on hemodialysis for 11 years (since August 2014), it is important to understand that chronic kidney disease often leads to anemia.

 

In most cases, this condition is treated with iron therapy and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). However, in certain situations—such as severe anemia or urgent medical need—doctors may recommend a blood transfusion.

Edited 1 hour ago by Dré

[Áine]

I welcome this update and it’s been on my mind for a while that we would get further information regarding blood, I’ve always viewed cell salvage as leaving your body

 

 However many are missing the point here, in some ways things have changed for planned procedures, but many times when the blood issue comes up is in an emergency situation… that’s when you’re pressured to take blood, believe me I’ve been there after giving birth when everything went very wrong very fast!

 

 We can’t have ‘our’ blood stored in a just in case situation like a RTA or a bleed of some kind… so in my mind we have changes that we can embrace if we want to bearing in mind that  it’s still very much a conscience matter 

 

It’s a lovely update and very well scripturally explained… if you can’t get to grips with it then go back and listen again looking up the research information 

[Michał]

I was a little surprised by this topic in GB but after some reflection I’d say it’s a very humble, courageous and spiritual decision on part of the GB. 

 

Now it’s more important than ever to understand why Jehovah gave the law in Acts 15:28,29. What’s the meaning of the blood? What’s it purpose? I really like this articles:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004444

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004445#h=1:0-6:412

[LeolaRootStew]

23 minutes ago, Dré said:

I would like to share a perspective on hemodialysis in Ukraine. Based on the experience of my wife, who has been on hemodialysis for 11 years (since August 2014), it is important to understand that chronic kidney disease often leads to anemia.

 

In most cases, this condition is treated with iron therapy and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). However, in certain situations—such as severe anemia or urgent medical need—doctors may recommend a blood transfusion.

 

I'm not sure what conclusion you're drawing from this?

[minister159]

5 hours ago, Dustparticle said:

 It may take time to digest this, we are not under the mosaic law, so how would Leviticus  17:13 apply to Christian living regarding how we view blood?

The law at Leviticus 17:13 was not merely a dietary restriction, but a repetition of the moral law given to Noah at Gen. 9:4 which was incumbent upon all mankind and has never been repealed.

4 hours ago, Abigail said:

If it were not for Acts 15, we could have blood transfusions, we could eat food that is not bled or made from blood products.

 

4 hours ago, Abigail said:

Blood represents life. This principle could harmonise with Genesis 9:4 which predates the Mosaic Law and still stands.

Did you just contradict yourself?

[Sofia]

4 hours ago, pholmes38 said:

Now we are not taking the principles of the Mosaic Law as binding, can I now have a tasteful tattoo?

I think so

but not any tattoo 

must be no religious and political neutral 

 

aaaah just kidding 

We have to wait for another clarification on this 

 

but it’s still a matter of conscience 

 

Edited 12 minutes ago by Sofia