The Many Shades of ‘Personal Decision’ in Watchtower Teachings (Not an exhaustive list)
Jehovah's Witnesses make a “personal decision” not to accept blood transfusions (whole blood or any of the 4 main components).
How many JW do you know who accept blood transfusions?
Although accepting a blood transfusion is a “personal decision” (which "you may need to explain- ie the default decision is you do not take the blood) Watchtower literature describes it as “unacceptable” and the Shepherd the Flock of God elders’ manual makes it clear that unrepentantly accepting blood means a JW disassociates themselves.
Consequence: shunning.
There is no appeals process for disassocation.
JW make a "personal decision not to vote"
How many JW do you know who vote?
There is no mention of voting in Shepherd the Flock and no official punishment.
They do not vote even though there's no official punishment.
Birth control and cremation are matters for "personal decision" for JW.
Most JW use contraceptives and have cremations.
They do because there's no stigma and no punishment.
For decades JW who made a personal decision to go get "additional" or "higher" education would be judged and sometimes punished.
Most JW did not get "additional education" (university/college) because of this.
The recent clarifying of the stance on"additional education" is that this "personal decision" should be without judgement.
Without punishment.
So as these examples show:
"personal decision" in Watchtower-speak ranges from:
Incurring punishment (blood).
Carrying stigma (voting).
Carrying no stigma (contraception, cremation).
Previously judged/ incurring punishment but now not judged/ punished (higher education).
Another way of putting it, what sounds like freedom of choice in Watchtower language can mean:
Mandatory compliance with punishment
Social pressure and stigma
True freedom
Posted Aug 28, 2025, 7:11 PM UTC