This is an old video in Spanish, and excuse me for not being so literal in my translation.
In this video, the peruvian interviewer of a TV program in Peru invited two representatives of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Peru (one of them is a witness lawyer,Victor, and the other one, Freddy Farfan, who leads the Hospital Liaison Committee in Peru.) on account of a case in which a baby of two months old has 3.3 of hemoglobin ( a very low level), so the medical doctor strongly suggested a blood transfusion for the baby, but his witness parents do not let it. Accordingly, the interviewer highlighted the fact that the baby is with a very low level of hemoglobin. So Freddy said that there were persons who survived with lower levels of hemoglobin without a blood transfusion by using alternative methods. The interviewer asked Freddy if he thinks that the doctor suggested a blood transfusion due to an ignorance. Then Freddy said that may be the doctor prefers this technique because it is his way of thinking, but they (the committee) have found other medical team using an alternative strategy. After this technical discussion, the interviewer said that he now likes to talk about the religious issue. He then said that he wants them to substantiate the reason why the witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions. So, Victor, the witness lawyer, answered : "We have two reasons for rejecting blood transfusions......however, I firstly wanted to point out that this is not an imposition of an institution, this is a matter of personal decision......", then Victor also quoted the Apostolic decree written in Acts 15, and said "after reading this text, the conscience of the Jehovah's Witnesses impels them to reject any kind of blood, because according to the Bible, the blood represents life, and life can only be handled by the Creator "...after that, the interviewer said: "Excuse me, I am not a theologian or an expert, but what you are reading is referring to other thing, do you found in that text any mention to blood transfusions??? "...so Victor replied : "the point is that there is a prohibition about any introduction of blood to the body"...and the interviewer said: "but there the text is talking about of the sacrificed blood of animals or humans in favor to the gods, so I think that that text has nothing to do with our issue " .. so Victor said: "that's an opinion, however, if animal blood is forbidden, we have more reasons to believe that human blood is forbidden, and let me show you an illustration. If an alcoholic can't drink alcohol, this also applies for the introduction of alcohol in his veins. " ......"but we are talking about of a life of a person that must be saved" said the interviewer. ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yLkrIj1upE