Can doctors give a Jehovah's Witness blood against their wishes? Not an adult who refuses; children often yes

Generally no, if the patient is a competent adult. In both the UK and the US, an adult who understands the consequences can lawfully refuse a blood transfusion for religious reasons, even if refusing may cost their life. Children are different: courts in England, Scotland and the US have repeatedly authorised doctors to give blood to the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and sometimes to teenage Witnesses, when it was needed to prevent serious harm or death.

The question has come back into the news after the BBC reported the story of Isaac Valdez, a 26-year-old Jehovah’s Witness from Texas who died on 26 August after a brain haemorrhage. His family was told he needed surgery that required a transfusion, and they followed the card he carried refusing one, according to LADbible’s account of the BBC report. The religion’s Governing Body changed its rules on 18 September, 23 days after his death.

What changed in the rules

Since 18 September, accepting the four main blood components (red cells, white cells, plasma and platelets) from another person is “a matter of personal conscience” for each Witness, the organisation said in a statement on jw.org. Whole-blood transfusions are still refused. That means many Witnesses may now accept treatment they would have refused before, but a patient can still say no, and the law below still applies to that refusal.

Adults: a competent refusal stands

In the UK, if an adult with capacity refuses treatment, “their decision must be respected”, even if refusing would result in their death, the NHS says in its guide to consent.

In England and Wales, a person can also refuse treatment in advance, for a time when they can no longer decide. The NHS says such an advance decision is legally binding if it complies with the Mental Capacity Act, is valid and applies to the situation. To refuse life-sustaining treatment it must be written down, signed, witnessed and state that it applies even if the person’s life is at risk.

In the US, the rules come from court decisions and vary by state. A leading case is Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Wons, in which the Florida Supreme Court held in 1989 that Norma Wons, a Jehovah’s Witness and mother of two, could refuse a transfusion even though she might die. The court weighed the state’s interest in protecting her children but found it did not override her rights, partly because relatives could care for them, according to a case summary. The court said each case had to be judged on its facts.

Children: courts can step in

When parents refuse blood for a child, hospitals can ask a court to decide, and the child’s welfare comes first. In a 2014 English case, the High Court authorised transfusions for a very young child of Witness parents who needed skin grafts. Mr Justice Moylan held that it could not be in the child’s best interests to be exposed to a risk of death that could be avoided, the UK Human Rights Blog reported.

Courts have also overruled teenagers who refuse blood themselves. In December 2025, Scotland’s Court of Session authorised transfusions for a 14-year-old Witness for up to two weeks after surgery, if needed to prevent significant harm or death, even though an assessment found she understood the consequences of refusing. Lady Tait said the order was in the girl’s best interests while giving “appropriate weight to her views”, Scottish Legal News reported. It was the first written ruling on this question for a Scottish under-16 with capacity.

What we don’t know

• How doctors and hospital liaison committees will apply the new rules in emergencies. The jw.org statement does not address emergencies, advance directive cards or children.

• Whether the law in every US state matches the Florida ruling. Decisions differ by state and by the facts of each case.

• How many Witnesses will now accept blood components. The organisation has not published any figures.