Question by Rustic B: Did the Jehovah’s Witnesses really change their blood policy in Bulgaria?
There seems to be a huge misunderstanding about whether there have been any changes in the Jehovah’s Witness doctrines and official policies on allowing blood transfusions in the country of Bulgaria. Whenever the claim is made that there was such as change, one reads comments such as this (just a small sample):

“I think your diatribe is not being honest, there is no change ANYWHERE including Bulgaria.”

“I am a JW and our unity is global. No changes have happened in only one country.”

“The whole Bulgaria Story is bogus, slanderous lies made up and traded between apostates.”

“You are spreading apostate lies.”

Now I can completely understand that when you use google to search for this story, you get a bunch of anti-JW websites. However, to clarify this matter, I used a library database to come up with some credible sources. Would these sources be believable?

First, here is an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics, dated December 1999, volume 24 Number 4. This is a peer-reviewed medical journal, not an “apostate web site.” The article reports that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bulgaria now have “have free choice” to receive blood transfusions “without any control OR SANCTION on the part of the association.”

Direct Web Link: http://www.ajwrb.org/jme/jmee.htm

Here are a few additional sources which mention the same thing. Note that these are mainstream newspapers or journals (not anti-JW websites).

Blood and the Witness. (2006, September 25). Irish Independent, p. 1.

Pauline Cote, James T Richardson. (2001). Disciplined litigation, vigilant litigation, and deformation: Dramatic organization change in Jehovah’s witnesses. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(1), 11-25.

Osamu Muramoto. (2001). Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah’s Witnesses. British Medical Journal, 322(7277), 37-9.

James King. (2000, July 15). Face to Faith: Blood is thicker than dogma. The Guardian, p. 1.22.

OK. Are we now satisfied that there was indeed a doctrinal change made in Bulgaria?
Tobias: I understand your concerns about a vast conspiracy in major newspapers and peer-reviewed journals to spread “rumors” about what happened in Bulgaria. However, the process of editorial review and scholarly peer review certainly would prevent outright lies from being published – especially in a well respected source like that British Medical Journal. The official site you listed has an article on this “friendly settlement.” By the way, a settlement normally involves some kind of a negotiation and compromise. Could you tell me what exactly that compromise was? Strangely enough, the statement says that the “terms of the agreement involved no change in the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Would it be possible for the WTS to publish the terms of the agreement? I’m asking because everyone who has read that agreement findings the following wording: Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bulgaria now have “have free choice” to receive blood transfusions “without any control OR SANCTION.”

Best answer:

Answer by Tobias Funke
Unless there is information that comes DIRECTLY from Jehovah’s Witnesses, either at http://www.watchtower.org or http://www.jw-media.org the claims of blood policy changes in Bulgaria is nothing but rumors and/or lies. That’s it.

Any sources outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the ones whose policy you’re discussing, are not reliable.

It’s beyond ridiculous to claim that the Jehovah’s Witness stand on blood would be different in one part of the world than the rest of the world.

- You would need to directly contact the WTS and see if they would provide you a more detailed explanation. If there were particular legal issues involved, they may not be permitted by law to disclose anything further. In any case, Jehovah’s Witness doctrine on the issue of blood, as you have pointed out, has NOT changed.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!