Anger over lives lost as Jehovah's Witnesses shift on blood transfusion

Anger over lives lost after Jehovah's Witnesses change blood transfusion doctrine In short: The Jehovah's Witnesses governing body has changed longstanding doctrine to allow followers to choose whether to accept red blood cells, white blood cells, plasma or platelets. There has been relief and anger in the wake of lives lost in Australia after transfusions were refused. A Hunter Valley woman says her mother's life could have been saved under the doctrine change. The daughter of a Jehovah's Witness who bled to death in Newcastle after refusing a blood transfusion says she is angry the faith has taken so long to tweak its doctrine to allow for blood transfusions in emergencies. Last week, the church announced it would alter its longstanding controversial opposition to lifesaving blood components for medical use. In a fundamental shift, the change to doctrine allows individual Witnesses to choose whether to accept red blood cells, white blood cells, plasma, or platelets obtained from another person's blood. Libby Macintyre lost her mother, Heather Winchester, after she refused a packed red blood cell transfusion in emergency in 2019. Ms Macintyre said she was angry over the number of lives lost, including her beloved mother. "I guess time heals to some degree but when things come up again, it does stir up that anger,"she said. "There's nothing I can do about it now, but if we could just make everyone aware so that others don't have to go through what I went through." Hunter Valley woman Irene Shea runs a support group for thousands of women who have left the church. Ms Shea said she was angry about deaths she felt could have been prevented, under old blood refusal rules. "I'm actually quite angry about it because I do know people that lost their lives," Ms Shea said. "We have mothers who lost their babies after childbirth or the mothers died themselves." Individual conscience Last Friday, Jehovah's Witness Governing Body member Geoffrey W Jackson announced the changes via video message from New York. He said the changed policy was a transfer of responsibility from a uniform religious prohibition to individual conscience. "Each Christian must make his own personal decision about the use of these four primary components in all medical and surgical care,"Mr Jackson said. He said whole blood transfusions still went against the scriptures, but components were accessible as they were not defined in teachings. "Since the scriptures don't comment on the various products that may be derived from blood, we recognise that in harmony with 1 Corinthians 4:6, we're not authorised to go beyond the things that are written." Blood refusal and death Heather Winchester, 75, died from complications after surgery at a NSW hospital in September 2019. An inquest heard Mrs Winchester lost more than a litre of blood after the elective surgery at Maitland Hospital and was urgently transferred to Newcastle's John Hunter Hospital. The 75-year-old refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds. Her daughter, Libby Macintyre, said at the time of her death her mum was following the teachings and never wavered. "She took everything literally as they tend to, I think that the Bible says something about thou shalt not take another man's blood,"she said. "But I mean, that means you don't kill them, isn't it?" Death not isolated Ms Shae said Mrs Winchester's death was not isolated, alleging many other lives could have been saved. "For all the thousands and thousands of deaths, it's heartbreaking, just heartbreaking." Despite the policy outlawing transfusions of whole blood, Australian Medical Association president Dr Danielle McMullen said procedures that previously would have been refused could go ahead. "Hopefully [it] allows a broader suite of health treatments available to more people and can broaden that conversation so that we can save more lives, keep people healthier," Dr McMullen said. In 2023, a court intervened to allow health officials in regional New South Wales permission to give a Jehovah's Witness toddler a transfusion against their parents' wishes. Prior to the policy tweak, Witnesses feared excommunication if they got a transfusion of agreed to one for their children. No judgement Mr Jackson urged followers not to judge others who accepted blood. "After considering these and other factors, each Christian must decide whether or not he will accept a component or a fraction derived from another person's blood," he said. "The congregation will not get involved in that decision, and individual Christians should not judge others." Ms Macintyre said in light of the doctrine change, questions remained. "I see still though that they keep coming back to the fact that it's got to be down to the individual and that the church doesn't necessarily recommend or not recommend," she said. "So I don't know, is that a good thing?"