Credit, Personal collection
In August of this year, 26-year-old Isaac Valdez was browsing books at the local library when he suffered an epileptic seizure that caused him to fall into convulsions. He hit his head on the floor, losing consciousness.
Later, at the hospital, it was learned that Valdez had hit his head so hard that he suffered a brain hemorrhage.
His treatment experienced serious complications because he, as a Jehovah's Witness, carried a card indicating that he would not accept any treatment that involved any type of blood transfusion, due to his religious beliefs.
Therefore, the procedure to drain fluid from Valdez's brain was not performed.
His family is originally from Waxahachie, in the US state of Texas. They felt relieved when they saw that Valdez had regained consciousness and was even able to speak again. He was able to confirm that he was firm in his stance of not carrying out blood transfusions.
But the family's relief at the apparent improvement was short-lived. Valdez fell into a coma and his condition rapidly worsened.
A neurosurgeon told the family that the only way to save his life would be emergency surgery, which would require a blood transfusion. His family decided to respect the wishes of Valdez, who had been a lifelong Jehovah's Witness, and not accept the procedure.
He died on August 26, 2026, when doctors turned off his life support. His brother Jacob Valdez describes him as an intelligent man who loved volunteer work and helping the elderly.
Just 23 days later, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses announced a radical change in their teachings.
With this change, most medical procedures that use donated blood are no longer prohibited for believers. Now, the decision to accept treatment or not is up to each person.
Had it been publicized sooner, this change could have given Valdez the green light he needed to receive the life-saving treatment that he himself had refused.
Jacob Valdez, still grieving the death of his twin brother, was furious with the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses for taking so long to reach this conclusion. He told BBC News that he believed his brother could still be alive if the measure had been announced earlier.
Bible verses
The original rule on blood transfusions of Jehovah's Witnesses dates back to 1945, near the end of World War II, when its use was increasingly widespread. Church leaders announced at the time that their faithful would not be able to receive blood transfusions.
The decision was based on his interpretation of biblical verses, from the Old and New Testaments, which prohibit the consumption of blood. They include a verse from the Book of Acts of the Apostles, which instructs the faithful to abstain from blood, food offered to idols and animals that have been strangled.
But why has the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses decided now, at its headquarters in New York State, to change the rules established 81 years ago?
This decision came after years of pressure, from inside and outside the church. But its leaders describe it differently.
"The change basically consists of applying biblical principles to modern medicine and its methods," says international spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses, Paul Gillies.
He described the decision as a new vision of both Scripture and medical advances.
The BBC reporter met with Gillies at the headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United Kingdom, which is located on 34 hectares of land in rural Essex, on the outskirts of London. The site is a vast, modern complex, where hundreds of faithful volunteers live and work without pay.
The spokesperson clarifies that the basic teaching has not been changed and that whole blood transfusion remains prohibited.
It turns out that for decades, most transfusions do not use whole blood, but only the specific blood components that the patient needs to receive.
The change is justified by allowing the use of blood components, such as plasma, red blood cells and platelets, in various medical procedures that were previously prohibited.
Gillies asserts that the Bible makes reference to "abstaining from blood" but not to "various components that can be extracted from blood."
The Governing Body felt, he said, that it was their duty to avoid an overly rigorous interpretation of the Scriptures and to apply only what the Bible specifically describes.
But this explanation left many people astonished. They wonder whether the prohibition of blood transfusions 81 years ago was a huge exaggeration, since the Bible does not specifically mention transfusions.
Others wonder why this historic decision took so long to arrive, as transfusions that do not use whole blood have been the norm for decades.
'Sincere apology'
Jacob Valdez asked himself these questions as soon as the ban was lifted, just days after tributes were paid to his brother Isaac.
He had previously abandoned the Jehovah's Witnesses, with whom he was raised, but sent anguish-filled text messages to prominent figures in Isaac Valdez's Texas congregation.
He asked them to examine "the role they played in encouraging so many people to sacrifice their lives for something that was never God's will."
Most people didn't respond, but one elder spoke up, saying he couldn't understand why Jacob Valdez was so furious and obsessed with the policy change.
All of this infuriated Valdez even more. He specifically wants church decision-makers to account for all the lives lost.
“I want to ask if they could apologize directly,” he says. "I would not like to receive an evasive answer, but a sincere apology."
Credit, Paul Kerley/BBC
It is extremely difficult to calculate how many people among the approximately nine million Jehovah's Witnesses around the world die every year because they refuse to receive blood transfusions.
But research published in 2016 by the medical journal The Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey places this number at around 1,100 faithful per year.
"We sympathize with their feelings, and if people have lost family members and are concerned about these issues, they deserve to be heard with compassion," Gillies said.
But the spokesperson doesn't make it very clear why the change didn't happen sooner. "Why did it take so long? Well, I guess because it takes time, it doesn't necessarily mean that some magical change has been produced," he responds.
When asked about it, Gillies avoids apologies from the directors. He claims that many lives were actually saved because faithful Jehovah's Witnesses were not exposed to the blood contamination scandals.
The spokesperson also argues that, even after the new announcement, some Jehovah's Witnesses may still decide to reject transfusions, which could have been the case with Valdez, even if the decision had been issued years ago.
In fact, the BBC spoke with Alex Ball, 58, a Jehovah's Witness from West Sussex, England.
He says that in 2012, a doctor told him that he would not survive the chemotherapy needed for his blood cancer treatment unless he also received a blood transfusion.
“When I was sick, I wanted to stick to the Scriptures as much as possible, and I believe I did well,” he recalls.
With the help of the so-called Hospital Liaison Committee of Jehovah's Witnesses, Ball found an American doctor who could perform 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, Ball says he would make the same decision again, even with the policy change that would have allowed the transfusions his doctor said would be necessary.
This problem is not just restricted to receiving blood.
Elisha Cummings, 50, a Jehovah's Witness originally from Trinidad and Tobago, was unable to donate blood to her aunt, who died before transfusion regulations were changed.
The ban also cost him his marriage.
Her husband, to whom she had been married for 10 years, abandoned religion and divorced, upon learning that he had received a blood transfusion when he was a child, which was frowned upon in his community of Jehovah's witnesses.
"Since the blood donation policy changed, I'm not the same person anymore," she says. “I was kind of in a depressed state.”
"How many houses have I visited to try to convince people about the doctrine of blood? And now it's totally different."
Cummings says his beliefs in general have been shaken. But she is reluctant to abandon her faith, in part, because it is what her community provides and she fears becoming isolated.
In the past, people who did not subscribe to the "blood doctrine" were marginalized or felt they had to abandon the religion. Will they be able to return now?
“Anyone who wishes to return to the faith is welcomed with open arms,” says Gillies.
He refers to those who abandoned Jehovah's witnesses because they had accepted a transfusion for themselves or a family member. "If you wish to return to being Jehovah's witnesses and wish to speak with the elders, you are welcome."
Discover more
Watch
End of Watch
