That portion of the Law reads as follows:  "'As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: "you must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off." As for any soul that eats a body already dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.'"

Jehovah made an exception to his own Law in the case of animals that died naturally or were killed by a beast. So, for example, say that a shepherd lost one of his sheep to a wolf, but the wolf only killed the sheep and did not devour it; Jehovah allowed that animal to serve as food for the shepherd even though it would have not been possible to properly bleed the animal and cover it's blood with dust. Provided that he bathe his garments and himself afterwards, the man was not held guilty. However, if the man did not bathe afterwards he would be held bloodguilty before God.

So, Jehovah was reasonable and did not place the value of an animal above the needs of people. Jesus similarly acknowledged our worth relative to the animal kingdom  when he said, "you are worth more than many sparrows." Still, though, even in the case of allowing an unbled animal to be eaten (provided that it was not possible to bleed an already dead carcass), God required the person to acknowledge their indebtedness to the Life-giver by bathing afterwards. Rather than weaken God's Law requiring blood to be poured out, it reinforced the obligation of the Hebrews to recognize Jehovah's claim of ownership of the life and blood of every soul.

Some are inclined to apply this principle as a means of dismissing entirely the apostolic injunction to "abstain from blood," as if it had no bearing whatsoever upon the medical use of blood. However, does that really do justice to the exception Jehovah made in the Mosaic Law? Moreover, does it honor the spirit of the Christian law that says, "abstain from blood"? More reasonably, the approach Jehovah's Witnesses have taken toward the many varied forms of blood transfusions follows more closely the spirit embodied in the ancient Israelite Law.

Our view is that blood and its main components should not be infused under any circumstances. But, we do allow for the conscience of each individual to determine matters in regards to medical procedures that may use so-called blood derivatives of these components. In essence, our approach already embodies the exception that Jehovah made in the Law.

Just as the Hebrew man who ate an unbled animal had to acknowledge his uncleanness before God or else be put to death, our goal is to honor the Life-giver who long ago laid claim on the blood of every soul, while at the same time not allowing Pharisaic fanaticism and dogmatism to cheapen the very life that Jehovah highly values. To be sure, reverencing God and balancing our own personal interests is not always an easy thing to do. But at least Jehovah's Witnesses are trying.

You are mistaken. The apostles specifically included in their injunction the order to also abstain "from what is strangled." If an animal had been strangled it could not have been properly bled in accord with the Jewish Law. Moreover, the apostles acknowledged that these precepts came from the Mosaic Law. Acts 15:19-21 reads: "Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath."

Of course, the Law of Moses applied to animal blood being poured out. But, long before the Law came into existence, God laid claim upon the blood of every man as well as of animals. Genesis 9:4-5 God says: "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat. And, besides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man."

Since Noah is the forefather of everyone alive today, his blood being the source of our blood, the covenant that God made with him after the Deluge is binding upon all of mankind. Jehovah owns our life. And since the blood in our veins is what sustains our life while we are alive, Jehovah specifically lays claim to the blood of every living soul.

In the Garden of Eden, Jehovah claimed sole ownership of one very special tree in the garden—the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. The result of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit of that tree is well known. Basically, Adam and Eve became fruit thieves. They took and ate something that did not belong to them. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that since God specifically lays claim to our blood, and it is self-evident he has only given us our life-blood conditionally, it is therefore inappropriate to donate or even store for future reuse, something that does not really belong to us.

First, Jesus did not set aside God's sabbath law. He simply ignored the Pharisaic traditions that were wrongly attached to the Sabbath. Secondly, God's prohibition on eating blood was no mere "dietary rule." That is evident from the fact that in the 11th chapter of Leviticus where God set out numerous dietary regulations as to which animals could and could not be eaten, blood is not even mentioned in that context. Instead, God's law against eating blood is mentioned in the 17th chapter of Leviticus in connection with animal sacrifices.

Furthermore, if an Israelite violated the law by eating or touching an animal, fish, or bird that was considered unclean under the law, they were simply considered unclean themselves until evening. Not so the person who ate blood. They were not merely considered ceremonially unclean until evening—they were to be put to death. God outlawed the eating of blood, not because it was unclean in his eyes, as were certain types of animals, but because blood is holy to Jehovah.

Also, it was indicated to Peter in a vision that God had cleansed what was formally considered to be unclean. So, Peter and the apostles knew that God no longer was imposing the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law upon the Christian congregation. But in that knowledge, the apostolic decree stated that abstaining from blood was one of the "necessary things" that was still binding upon Christians, even though the numerous dietary restrictions of the Law of Moses were not. So, to imply that God's law on blood was and is a mere dietary law is wrong.

As for the example Jesus set, we would do well to remember that while Jesus condemned the merciless legalism of the Pharisees, he never compromised God's law. Jesus taught us that obeying God is more important than life itself. The Son of God laid down the principle that the individual that seeks to save his soul (presumably by compromising their faith) will lose it, but he that loses his soul, for Christ's sake, will gain it.  Jesus practiced what he preached, as he gave his very life to comply with God's Will.

But, your question implies that the Watchtower shows disregard for human life by callously preventing Jehovah's Witnesses from receiving potentially life-saving treatment. That is wrong. For one thing, taking blood transfusions is no guarantee of life and neither does refusing blood mean certain death—as many naively believe. Many unfortunate souls have lost their lives by taking what they supposed was a life-saving transfusion, only to have a fatal hemolytic reaction or contract some loathsome disease. On the other hand, many of Jehovah's Witnesses, despite the dire warnings and predictions of doctors, have refused transfusions and done quite well.

Besides that, the Watchtower has acted responsibly, going to great lengths to educate doctors and medical people as to acceptable alternatives for Jehovah's Witnesses in need of treatment.   In most major cities with concentrations of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower has sponsored and trained qualified elders in what are known as Hospital Liaison Committees. Numerous seminars have been held around the world, to the end of minimizing confrontations over the blood issue. As a result of the ongoing work of the HLC, over 90,000 doctors and other medical people are now more than willing to cooperate with Jehovah's Witnesses. Not only that, there are now some 80 medical centers around the world where bloodless medicine and surgery are performed.

Jehovah's Witnesses can be proud of the fact that the Watchtower has been instrumental in causing bloodless surgery and other non-blood therapy to become viable alternatives, not only for Jehovah's Witnesses, but to the benefit of others as well.  Here is a link to a website that acknowledges the contribution Jehovah's Witnesses have made toward making non-blood alternatives more acceptable to the public. So, the accusation or implication that the Watchtower has somehow been uncaring or negligent in these matters is absolutely not true.

It is not really correct to say that the Watchtower Society permits various blood components. The Watchtower's position is that the use of blood fractions is a conscience matter. It is more correct to say that some of Jehovah's Witnesses permit themselves to use blood fractions. Others, however, do not think it is proper. It is up to each person to decide in the eyes of God. This is the correct position to take and in accord with the precedent recorded in the Bible dealing with the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols.

As you know, the apostolic decree that commands Christians to abstain from blood also says "to abstain from things polluted by idols." That would seem to forbid Christians from eating any sort of food that had been sacrificed to an idol. However, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians he reasoned that Christians have authority to eat foods sacrificed to idols as long as the Christian did not directly take part in the idolatrous sacrifice itself. After all, the idol is nothing. Jehovah owns everything anyway, Paul reasoned, and Christians who give thanks to Jehovah could eat all foods with a clean conscience in the sight of Jehovah.

In the 10th chapter of 1st Corinthians, Paul explained further how matters of conscience should come into play on that issue, he wrote: "Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of your conscience; for "to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it." If anyone of the unbelievers invites you and you wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience.  But if anyone should say to you: "This is something offered in sacrifice," do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience."

The situation Paul was describing is not unlike the issue raised in connection with some of Jehovah's Witnesses taking blood fractions today. In the case of meat sold in the market that winds up on someone's dinner table where you might be a dinner guest, according to the apostle the reasonable Christian ought not to make an issue as to whether the meat had or had not been offered in sacrifice to some idol. Obviously, the meat was several orders removed from the actual idolatrous ceremony—so why make an issue of it? The bottom line: The eater did not offer that animal to a false god, and may eat in good conscience.

The same principle may apply to those who might choose to make use of derivatives from donated blood. The blood donation itself may be likened to the actual animal sacrifice. Afterwards, the blood goes through an industrial processing, being divided up into its constitutional parts and various derivatives, at which point the numerous constituents arrive at "the market." At what point, though, do the fractions no longer resemble the blood from which they were fractioned and derived? The Watchtower has enumerated the main components that make up whole blood. That is reasonable. However, some of Jehovah's Witnesses have reasoned that lesser components, so-called derivatives, are unrecognizable from the blood that was removed from the vein of the originating soul; and so, like the sacrificed animal that winds up on someone's dinner table, they do not inquire as to the donor—so to speak. In other words: It is a matter for each Christian conscience to resolve—just as was the sacrificial meat issue in the 1st Century.

Matters of conscience can be very difficult for immature Christians to deal with. As Paul further reasoned, even though knowledgeable Christians had authority to eat whatever they wanted, they ought to watch out for the consciences of others who may not be as strong in their faith. The danger that existed then was that some weak Christians who saw the "strong" brothers eating such foods might be misled to partake and wound their own conscience—thinking they were sinning but that it was okay. Others might be emboldened to actually participate in an idolatrous ceremony.

So, the problem is that some of Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand such weighty issues. Some may reason that since 'it is okay' to take blood derivatives, why not also just donate, store or take whole blood transfusions? That would be like a 1st Century Christian reasoning, that, since Paul said it was "okay" to eat the sacrificed meat, they might as well just go ahead and sacrifice a bull to Zeus in a pagan temple.  As Paul indicated in the 8th chapter of 1ST Corinthians, the problem lies in the lack of knowledge on the part of those weak in conscience.

This is what is known as a fallacy of logic in argumentation. It is specifically called the bandwagon fallacy, whereby an illogical appeal is made to jump on the bandwagon because everyone else is on for the ride. To illustrate the fallacy: All the clergy of Christendom agree that Jesus is part of the Trinity. But, does the near-unanimous agreement of the clergy make that doctrine true? Does the sheer weight of hundreds of millions of wishful worshippers make the Trinity true? Of course not. Similarly, just because the medical establishment says that blood is safe does not make it so. The truth is that taking a transfusion is risky business. That is evidenced by the fact that hospitals usually require patients to sign a waiver releasing the hospital and medical staff from liability in case a blood transfusion results in harm to the patient. It does not seem that the Watchtower has overstated the risks. On the contrary, if anything the evidence seems to indicate that the blood industry has downplayed many of the risks associated with blood.

We must not be naïve. Blood is big business. It is a for-profit business with a vested interest in promoting the use of the product it sells. It is estimated that in a few years the blood industry will be an 8-billion dollar a-year enterprise worldwide. The website bloodbook.com estimates that compared to $25 per-barrel oil, a barrel of plasma can fetch $90,000 and much more, depending on how it is refined. Contrary to popular opinion, most blood does not come from volunteer donors who roll up their sleeves in the bloodmobiles. Instead, it comes from paid donors. Many are invariably the down-and-out unfortunates, who are forced by their desperate circumstances to literally sell their souls—by the pint! It is well-known that a large percentage of the paid donors are drug users, alcoholics and diseased individuals. That is not exactly a healthy origin for a supposed life-saving elixir of health.

Some of the dangers associated with tainted blood are equally well-known. For example, before screening techniques were employed, AIDS from transfused blood at one time infected 60% of all transfused hemophiliacs. Some deaths occur as a result of hemolytic reactions to transfused blood. Bacterial contamination has killed several hundred victims in the Untied States over a ten year period. Hepatitis C is an ongoing issue that the blood industry has downplayed. What is most worrisome, though, is not what diseases are known to be transmitted by transfusions, but what emerging viruses lurk that have not yet been detected. For example, mad cow disease, while not common, is definitely capable of infecting the blood supply. What other dangers remain hidden? Time will tell.

Here is a Watchtower article on the dangers of blood transfusions. Each reader may decide for themselves whether the Watchtower has exaggerated the risk associated with transfused blood.

It is noteworthy, though, that the apostles' decree to carefully abstain from idolatry, blood and fornication concluded with their blessing: "Good health to you."

This goes back to the principle related to the issue of foods sacrificed to idols that Paul discussed. Reasonably, there is a point at which donated blood has been refined beyond what is recognizable as blood. What point is that? The Governing Body of the Watchtower has issued their decree that beyond the point of plasma, white cells and red platelets, the use of refined blood is a matter of conscience.

There would appear to be a fair bit of hypocrisy on the part of our opposers, in that (on the one hand) the Watchtower is accused of being Pharisaic for their blood policy overall; but then (on the other hand), they are accused for not being Pharisaic and fanatical enough because they are allowing the brothers to decide for themselves on lesser blood derivatives. 

In all of your questions you have said over and over again: "The Society says, the Society says." But, you have never once considered the validity of what Jehovah says! Why is that? Why is it that if the Watchtower doesn't live up to your ideal of the perfect religious institution that you discard it as though it were not serving a useful purpose for God's people?

Even Paul was dismayed over the fact that many of the anointed Corinthian Christians professed to belong to him or Apollos or Cephas. Was Paul worthy of their worship? They just didn't get what the truth was all about. But, did the fact that some unspiritual Corinthians followed men nullify the faith of those who actually got it?

The danger that comes from following men and not having a personal attachment to God becomes evident when a disagreement or misunderstanding arises. Tragically, when the person realizes that they have been blindly following men it is usually too late at that point to then form a real relationship with God because of the mistrust in the men who were formerly followed. Even worse, the person who follows the Watchtower with no real appreciation for the relationship that Jehovah's Witnesses have with Jehovah, is also inclined to follow other men who may happen to come along.

So, it is that Watchtower-followers are susceptible to being misled by individuals like Ray Franz, for example. For a fact, the sect of Ray Franz is the driving force behind the so-called blood reform movement within the Watchtower Society today; and if you are honest with yourself, you will admit that the questions you have posed did not originate with you.

But, as regards your question, I seriously doubt that the Watchtower will ever change its mind about blood, as you word it. But, if they do, I lay claim to the words of Joshua, which read: "But as for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah."