Again, Nigeria finds itself in the very centre of impassioned argument over the most personal medical decision of a woman for whom many came together to help.
Omolola Mensah, affectionately known as Auntie Esther, became the focal point of a national debate not because she was asking for aid but because of what her faith led her to refuse.
Auntie Esther, famous on X formerly Twitter for her colourful “market runs,” sought public assistance after her diagnosis with breast cancer, and Nigerians contributed about ₦30 million towards her treatment.
It was a moment that showcased our unmatched culture of compassion.
But soon after, a subsequent update she posted shifted the conversation sharply.
The 38-year-old Jehovah’s Witness explained that though her doctors had suggested a blood transfusion to prepare her for chemotherapy, she had declined.
Instead, she opted to depend on injections and recommended foods to boost her blood count an option her medical team agreed to support.
And so, with that, the revelation split the country into two.
Some Nigerians argued that it should go to someone who was prepared to undergo “full” medical treatment.
Others insisted that faith and bodily autonomy were sacrosanct, even when donation money was involved.
And that leads to the question: Why is one woman’s religious conviction shaking an entire nation?
Faith versus Medicine: A Conflict Older Than This Debate
It is no secret that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Specific Bible verses enjoin believers to abstain from blood in any form.
To Witnesses, this is not a symbolic instruction; it is a direct command from God.
Here are the key scriptures their doctrine is built on:
Genesis 9:4 – “But you must not eat meat which still has its lifeblood.”
Leviticus 17:10 – “I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood…”
Deuteronomy 12:23 – “Be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life…”
Acts 15:28–29 – “…you must abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.”
Leviticus 17:14 – “Because the life of every creature is its blood… anyone who eats it must be cut off.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret these passages literally.
To them, receiving a blood transfusion is spiritually the same as taking in blood in a way that the scriptures forbid.
This belief forms the foundation of all medical decisions involving blood.
So when Auntie Esther refused the transfusion, she was not rebelling against medical advice; she was obeying a command she believes comes from God Himself.
But the Outrage Says More About Nigeria Than About Her
Nigeria is a religious country; ironically, however, when someone’s religious conviction leads them to make a hard personal choice, many of us struggle to respect it especially when money is involved.
But herein lies the truth:
Charity cannot purchase one’s right to control another person’s body.
People donated to help her fight cancer, not to dictate her conscience.
Those who have been asking for the donations to be transferred to another patient reveal an uncomfortable part of our national character:
We are generous, but we often expect compliance in return.
But compassion is not conditional.
Autonomy is not something to be bargained over.
And just because it becomes inconvenient to us, one’s faith is not invalidated.
The Bigger Lesson for Nigeria
Auntie Esther’s case has made Nigeria face some hard questions:
Do we support only those who follow our preferred medical choices?
Do we respect religious convictions only when they match our expectations?
Does public donation give the public ownership of someone’s body?
Her decision may delay treatment. It may cost more. It may challenge the emotions of donors. But ultimately, it remains her decision, shaped by scriptures she holds sacred.
True pluralism involves respecting choices-even the ones that are uncomfortable-in a diversified country with Muslims, Christians, traditionalists, atheists, and everything else in between.
This is really not about blood. It is about how Nigeria responds to conviction. It is about whether personal belief still has a place in public sympathy.
And above all, it is about defending every citizen’s right to choose how to face illness, life, and God. That’s a right well worth protecting.
Visit www. jw.org for more information on this topic .