TD
There is some cultural fluidity in what is considered moral conduct, but there is considerable unanimity on big things like wrongful death.
I think that observation is neither here nor there as far as JW's are concerned though. The leaders and policy makers in the JW faith operate very much within the Western Judeo-Christian framework and clearly recognize concepts from Jewish law like, 'bloodguilt'. I'm sure in your time spent as a JW, you heard that term many times. It's a broad term that includes any and all secondary and contributory causes of wrongful death.
If you hire someone to kill your spouse, you're just as bloodguilty as if you pulled the trigger yourself. If you fail to provide adequete safeguards for dangerous conditions like fall hazards, and someone falls to their death, you're still bloodguilty even though you didn't actually push them. If you fail to warn someone who's endangering their life out of ignorance, you're bloodguilty if they die. If you as a layperson give bad medical advice and someone dies as a result, you're bloodguilty.
Ethics is the formal language of moralilty and it actually has a lot to say when it comes to the life and health of other people. Even if all you're doing is writing a fluffy article in a trendy health magazine about the latest weight loss regimen, you still have to be very careful to say, "Always consult with your physician before starting any diet or exercise program." If you were to say, "Don't listen to your physician, listen to me instead" you will very likely wind up in jail. And that is the essence of what JW's have said about transfusion medicine for many years.
But abstaining from blood, is not a medical advice. They believe (I believed) it was a divine law. So they consider it (religiously) wrong to use blood, whereas you have no religious objections.
Adamah stated earlier: " The eisegesis in Acts rests upon a foundation of their far-greater misunderstanding of Genesis 9, which is based on a mistranslation which resulted from confusing a blessing with an obligation." Is it ethically wrong to misunderstand something? Is it ethically wrong to believe that what the Biblical commands on the subject of blood should be applied to the medical use as well? And if you believe that, is it ethically wrong to abstain from blood? And if you are a religious leader, is it ethically wrong to teach what you believe?
Jehovah's Witnesses teach strict obedience without compromise. They are expected to die fairly horrible deaths rather than buy a political party card, salute a flag, etc. Peer pressure hardly compares to a concentration campe does it?
Strict obedience, yes. But to who? The JW who doesn't buy a political party card: is that because they don't want to disappoint the the GB? The average JW probably doesn't even know their names. When they don't salute the flag: is that because they are afraid of the elders? Maybe in some cases, especially the ones who have some doubts. But they will not stand firm for long. The individual JW will endure hard times because of the conviction that it is God's will.