As often discussed here and on other places, there are many good arguments against the WTS blood policy. Basically the distinction between what is a component and what a fraction, is often , and right so, target of critisicm. However, it can get confusing, especially when apologists like thirdwitness or standfirm argue for any spot of reasonableness in it. Many dubs may scare away from an indepth discussion, and just let the WTS think for them ("they researched it anyway, and know better than we, after all we are to trust our leadership"). Therefore, maybe another approach may help.
Lets just say, for arguments sake, the commandment to abstain from blood really includes blood transfusions.
The WTS often argues, that is is better to loose ones life and stay faithful, than to break Gods law, therefore stay alive, but loose Gods favour. As example often those martyr Christains of ancient times are mentioned, who did not compromise their faith and rather died.
Lets analyse, if this is really consistent and logical:
1) When Christains in old times were faced with the possibility to loose their life it was always when enemies of them tried to force them to loose their integrity. Their loyalty to Goid was questioned by opposers. The issue was, whether they fear men or God. Those men persecuted them, and their faith was challenged.
However, regarding blood transfusions, this analogy fails. If you get in an accident or have a complex surgery, the medical stuff does not try to break your faith or to persecute you. They simply do what their profession is, to safe your life, to help you. They do not care what kind of faith you have, they do not require any kind of worship from you, they just want to help ! No comparison to heathen or wicked opposers.
2) No doubt, for a Christain, to keep the commandments of God, it is very important, if not most important in life. However, does it mean, that any commandment is absolute with no exception ? Example, a clear commandment is not to kill another person. What if you act in self defense ? Lets say you have no choice other than protect yourself than to kill the aggressor ? Did you still overstep the commandment not to kill ? Even WTS acknowledges that when you had no other option (like running away etc), acting in self defense to protect your life is allowed. Therefore even witnesses can be police with carrying a gun. Though they will have no privilege, they will noit be dfd for it. So why is it then forbidden to take a blood transfusion, if its the only means to save your life ?
3) Whats the point of any commandment of God ? How did Jesus view Gods laws, as absolute commandment, with no reasonings or exceptions whatsoever ? What about the account about the woman with the blood flow ? She clealry overstepped the letter of the law, by approaching Jesus. However, Jesus did not rebuke her, because following the letter of the law would have, in this case, violated the intention of the law. The intention was for hygenical reasons, that a woman with blood flow has to be seperated from others. However, if she kept the letter of the law, she would not have been healed, and therefore always pose a risk to herself and others. What the reason fo the blood prohibition ? To view blood as carrying the life, and therefore sacred. It should not be misused. However, what if life is lost, because of clinging to the letter of the law ? Is than not also the intention of the law violated ?
Sorry I dont have my cd-rom at work, so I cannot include references atm, the WTS stance is more or less from memory. I´ll try to provide exact quotes on a later time. Just wanted to know your opinions. I f there are weaknesses in my reasoning, please feel free to spot them. Its appreciated.