This man refused life-saving treatment because of his religion – days later the rules changed

ByAleem Maqbool, Religion editor and Catherine Wyatt.

Key points

• But research in one medical journal in 2016, The Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, put the figure at around 1, 100.
• Indeed, the BBC spoke with Alex Ball, 58, a Jehovah's Witness from West Sussex.
• So, why has the Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body, based in New York state, now decided to change the rules, 81 years after introducing them?
• "The change is basically the application of Bible principles to modern medicine and its methods, " notes the Jehovah's Witnesses international spokesperson, Paul Gillies.
• We meet Gillies at the Jehovah's Witnesses UK headquarters set in 85 acres of Essex countryside.

In August this year, 26-year-old Isaac Valdez had an epileptic seizure while browsing in his local library, causing him to convulse and strike his head against the ground.

He lost consciousness. Afterwards, in hospital, it transpired Isaac had hit his head with such force it had led to a brain haemorrhage.

As a Jehovah's Witness, Isaac carried a "No Blood" card, an indication that he would not accept treatment involving any form of blood transfusion since of his religious beliefs, treatment was seriously complicated by the fact that.

Consequently, a procedure to drain fluid from Isaac's brain did not take place.

But his family, from Waxahachie, Texas, were encouraged by the fact that he regained consciousness and even began to talk again. He was able to confirm that he stood by his "no blood" beliefs.

Notably, the family's relief at his apparent improvement was short-lived. Isaac slipped into a coma and his condition worsened rapidly.

In practice, a neurosurgeon informed Isaac's family the only way to save his life was an emergency operation, but that it was one that required blood transfusion.

His family decided to abide by Issac's wishes as a lifelong Witness not to accept such a procedure.

Isaac – who his twin brother Jacob Valdez describes as an intelligent man who loved volunteering and helping the elderly – died on 26 August 2026 when doctors turned off his life backing.

Just 23 days afterwards, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Governing Body unveiled a seismic change in teaching that would, in effect, have given Isaac the religious green light to have the life-saving treatment he had refused.

Notably, the change suddenly means the vast majority of medical procedures using donated blood are no longer prohibited to followers. Now, decisions on whether to accept such treatments are to be left to individuals.

Jacob, already dealing with the death of his twin, was angered at the Jehovah's Witnesses' leadership for not coming to their conclusion sooner. He informed BBC News he believes Isaac could well still be alive if they had.

Notably, the original rule on blood transfusions dates back to 1945, towards the particularly end of a war during which the apply of blood transfusions had been increasingly widespread. According to The leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses, their believers were not permitted to accept transfusions.

This was based on their interpretation of Bible verses from both the Old and New Testaments prohibiting the consumption of blood, including one from the Book of Acts that instructs believers to abstain from blood, from food offered to idols, and from things that had been strangled.

It comes after years of pressure from both within and outside the faith, but that is not how leaders of the faith describe the decision.

"The change is basically the application of Bible principles to modern medicine and its methods, " notes the Jehovah's Witnesses international spokesperson, Paul Gillies. This person described it as both a fresh look at scripture and at medical advances.

We meet Gillies at the Jehovah's Witnesses UK headquarters set in 85 acres of Essex countryside. It is a vast modern complex where hundreds of volunteer followers of the faith live and work without pay.

He insists the basic teaching has not changed and that the transfusion of whole blood is still prohibited. Nevertheless, for decades, most transfusions have not employed whole blood, instead using the specific components of blood that are needed by the patient.

In practice, the change is being justified by permitting the employ of blood components, like plasma and red blood cells and platelets, in the enormous numbers of medical procedures that were previously banned.

Gillies notes the Bible references "abstaining from blood" but not "various components that could be extracted from blood".

He notes the Governing Body felt it their duty to avoid scriptural "overreach" and only apply what was specifically described in the Bible.

When transfusions are not specifically mentioned in the bible, but that explanation has stunned plenty of and led them to ask if it was not a enormous overreach 81 years ago to ban blood transfusions in the first place.

Others are then additionally asking why it has taken so long to come to this landmark decision, given that transfusions that do not apply whole blood have been the norm for decades.

These are questions Jacob asked as shortly as the ban was lifted, just days after a memorial service for Isaac.

Jacob, who had already left the Jehovah's Witness faith he was brought up in, texted prominent figures from Isaac's congregation in Texas after Isaac's death. The messages are full of angst, and painful to read.

He asked them to consider "the part you played in encouraging so many people to sacrifice their life for something that was never God's will".

Most did not reply, but one "elder" responded saying he could not understand why Jacob was so angry and fixated on the policy shift.

This all further infuriated Jacob. This person particularly wants the faith's decision-makers to be accountable for all the lives lost.

"I want to ask them if they could apologise directly, I would like not to have a deflected answer, just straightforward apology, " he notes.

It is extremely tough to say how numerous Jehovah's Witnesses, among the estimated nine million followers of the faith worldwide, died each year having refused treatment involving blood transfusions. But research in one medical journal in 2016, The Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, put the figure at around 1, 100.

"We're sympathetic to their feelings, and if individuals have lost family members and are concerned about some of these questions, they deserve to be heard compassionately, " notes Gillies.

But there was little clarity regarding why the change did not come earlier.

"Why has it taken this time? Well, I guess since it takes time, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is some magic change that's taken place, " states Gillies.

And when asked, Gillies deflects calls for the leadership to apologise, saying that plenty of lives had, in fact, been saved as faithful Jehovah's Witnesses had not been exposed to blood contamination scandals.

He additionally insists that even after the new edict, some Jehovah's Witnesses could still decide they did not want to accept a transfusion, and that may have been the case even if the edict had come years ago.

Indeed, the BBC spoke with Alex Ball, 58, a Jehovah's Witness from West Sussex. This person notes in 2012 a doctor informed him he would not survive the chemotherapy he needed to treat his blood cancer unless he additionally had a transfusion.

"I wanted to adhere as closely to the scriptures as possible when I was sick, and I think I did that well."

With support from what is called "a Jehovah's Witness Hospital Liaison Committee", Alex identified an American consultant who could perform a treatment to boost Alex's blood cells without the need for any products from someone else. His UK consultant agreed to treat him using the new method and it worked.

In short, this man refused life-saving treatment because of his religion is the central thread here, and readers can expect follow-up reporting as the picture becomes clearer.