The issue of blood remains a tricky one.
Personally, I think that the OT prohibition of blood is more of a statement of respect for life and in particular respect for the life of the animal that lost it life in providing food for man. Similarly, it was prohibited for a calf to be cooked in the milk of its mother.
With blood transfusions, no one actually dies and, therefore, in my view blood transfusion is more a matter of personal conscience than centrally dictated law.
Undeniably though, it is clear that risks are associated with blood transfusions, particularly hepatitis C.
If an alternative were available, would you not choose this every time over whole blood? Would this not then justify the current JW stance?
eyeslice