Image source, Courtesy of the Valdez family
In August 2026, Isaac Valdez, 26, was browsing books in his neighborhood library when he suffered an epileptic seizure that caused him to fall into convulsions and hit his head on the floor.
He lost consciousness. Later, at the hospital, it was learned that Isaac had hit his head so hard that he had suffered a brain hemorrhage.
The treatment was seriously complicated by the fact that, as a Jehovah's Witness, Isaac carried a card stating that he would not accept any treatment involving any type of blood transfusion due to his religious beliefs.
Consequently, the procedure to drain the fluid from his brain was not performed.
His family, originally from Waxahachie, Texas, was encouraged to see him regain consciousness and even speak again. He was able to confirm that he was still firm in his position of not having blood transfusions.
But the family's relief at his apparent improvement was short-lived. Isaac fell into a coma and his condition rapidly worsened.
A neurosurgeon told Isaac's family that the only way to save his life was an emergency operation, but this required a blood transfusion.
His family made the decision to respect the wishes of Isaac, a lifelong Jehovah's Witness, not to accept the procedure.
Finally, Isaac, whom his twin brother Jacob Valdez describes as an intelligent man who loved volunteering and helping the elderly, passed away on August 26, 2026 when doctors turned off his life support.
Just 23 days later, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses announced a radical change in their teachings that, had it come sooner, would have given Isaac the green light to receive the life-saving treatment that he himself had rejected.
This change means that the vast majority of medical procedures using donated blood are no longer prohibited for the faithful. Now, the decision to accept or not accept these treatments is at the discretion of each person.
Jacob, who was dealing with the death of his twin, became angry at the Jehovah's Witness leaders for not coming to that conclusion sooner.
He told BBC News that he believes Isaac could well still be alive if they had done so.
bible verses
The original rule on blood transfusions dates back to 1945, almost at the end of World War II, when its use had become widespread.
Jehovah's Witness leaders announced that their believers could not receive transfusions.
This was based on his interpretation of biblical verses from both the Old and New Testaments that prohibit the consumption of blood, including one from the Book of Acts that instructs believers to abstain from blood, food offered to idols, and animals that have been strangled.
So why has the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses now decided from its headquarters in New York state to change the rules it introduced 81 years ago?
This decision comes after years of pressure both within and outside the faith, but that is not how religious leaders describe it.
"The change is basically the application of biblical principles to modern medicine and its methods," said Paul Gillies, international spokesman for the Witnesses, who described it as a new perspective on both the Scriptures and medical advances.
We met Gillies at the Jehovah's Witnesses UK headquarters, located on 34 hectares of land in the Essex countryside. It is a vast, modern complex where hundreds of faithful volunteers live and work without pay.
He insists that basic teaching has not changed and that whole blood transfusion remains prohibited. However, for decades, most transfusions have not used whole blood, but only the specific blood components needed by the patient.
The change is justified by allowing the use of blood components, such as plasma, red blood cells and platelets, in the large number of medical procedures that were previously prohibited.
Gillies states that the Bible refers to "abstaining from blood" but not to "various components that could be extracted from blood."
According to him, the Governing Body considered it their duty to avoid an overly strict interpretation of the Scriptures and to apply only what is specifically described in the Bible.
But that explanation has stunned many and led them to wonder whether what was a huge excess was banning blood transfusions 81 years ago, even though transfusions are not specifically mentioned in the Bible.
Others wonder why it has taken so long to reach this landmark decision, given that transfusions that do not use whole blood have been the norm for decades.
"A sincere apology"
These are the questions Jacob asked himself as soon as the ban was lifted, just days after a memorial service honoring Isaac.
Jacob, who had already abandoned the Jehovah's Witnesses faith in which he was raised, sent text messages to prominent figures in Isaac's congregation in Texas after Isaac's death. The messages are full of anguish.
He asked them to consider "the role they played in encouraging so many people to sacrifice their lives for something that was never God's will."
Most did not respond, but one "elder" replied saying he couldn't understand why Jacob was so angry and obsessed with the policy change.
All of this further angered Jacob, who especially wants the faith's decision-makers to be held accountable for all the lives lost.
"I want to ask them if they could apologize directly; I wouldn't want a evasive answer, but a sincere apology," he says.
image copyrightPaul Kerley / BBC
It is extremely difficult to determine how many of the approximately nine million witnesses worldwide die each year after refusing blood transfusions.
However, research published in 2016 in the medical journal The Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey put the figure at around 1,100.
"We sympathize with their feelings, and if people have lost family members and are concerned about some of these issues, they deserve to be heard with compassion," Gillies said.
But the spokesperson is not very clear why the change had not occurred before.
"Why has it taken so long? Well, I guess because it takes time, it doesn't necessarily mean that some magical change has occurred," says Gillies.
When asked about this, Gillies deflects calls for an apology from the leadership, stating that, in fact, many lives have been saved because Jehovah's Witnesses have not been exposed to blood contamination scandals.
He also insists that even after the new edict, some Jehovah's Witnesses could still decide to refuse a transfusion, and that that could have been the case even if the edict had been issued years ago.
In fact, the BBC spoke to Alex Ball, 58, a Jehovah's Witness from West Sussex, England, who claims that in 2012 a doctor told him that he would not survive the chemotherapy he needed to treat his blood cancer unless he also received a transfusion.
"When I was sick, I wanted to stick as closely as possible to the scriptures, and I think I did well."
With the help of what is called a "Jehovah's Witness Hospital Liaison Committee," Alex found an American doctor who could give him a treatment to increase his red blood cells without the need for third-party products.
His British doctor agreed to treat him with this new method, and it worked.
More than a decade later, Alex says he would make the same decision again, despite the change in policy that would have allowed the transfusions he had been told he needed.
The problem does not lie only in the receipt of blood.
Elisha Cummings, 50, a Jehovah's Witness from Trinidad and Tobago, was unable to donate blood to her aunt, who died before the rules on transfusions were lifted.
Image copyrightCourtesy of the Cummings family
They also cost her her marriage, as her husband, to whom she had been married for 10 years, abandoned the faith and divorced her after it was revealed that he had received a blood transfusion as a child, something that was frowned upon in her Jehovah's Witness community.
"Ever since they changed the blood donation policy, I haven't been myself," she says. "It left me in a depressed state."
"How many houses did I go to trying to convince people about the blood doctrine? And now it's something totally different," Elisha says.
Elisha says her overall beliefs have been shaken, but she is reluctant to abandon her faith, in part because it is what her community provides her and she fears isolation.
In the past, those who did not agree with the doctrine of the blood were marginalized or felt they had to abandon the faith. Can they return now?
"Anyone who wishes to return to the faith is welcomed with open arms," says Gillies, referring to those who had left the Witnesses because they had accepted a transfusion for themselves or a family member.
"If they wish to become Jehovah's Witnesses again and want to talk to the elders, they are welcome to do so."
This article was originally written in English and we used an artificial intelligence tool to translate it. A BBC journalist reviewed the text before publication. Learn more about how we use AI.
Discover more
Video
End of Video
