http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/article_01.htm
"All humanity was thus notified that in the Creator's view, blood stands for life. This was more than a dietary regulation. Clearly a moral principle was involved. Human blood has great significance and should not be misused. The Creator later added details from which we can easily see the moral issues that he links to lifeblood."
"Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God."
"Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose. During a wartime crisis, some Israelite soldiers killed animals and "fell to eating along with the blood." In view of the emergency, was it permissible for them to sustain their lives with blood? No. Their commander pointed out that their course was still a grave wrong. (1 Samuel 14:31-35) Hence, precious as life is, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency." (While providing the scripture reference, they fail to mention that death was not mandated for this 'sin'.)
"Experiments with this began near the start of the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, objected: 'Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.'
Hence, thinking people in past centuries realized that the Biblical law applied to taking blood into the veins just as it did to taking it into the mouth. Bartholin concluded: "Either manner of taking [blood] accords with one and the same purpose, that by this blood a sick body be nourished or restored."---(Of course, this is wrong and totally bad medicine-if a doctor told you that, they'd get busted. This was a very intelligent man, but it was the 1600's!-The 17th century. They still bled people for crying out loud! This doctor was wrong in this instance(due to ignorance), and the WT is wrong in its conclusions-deliberately so.
The entire "Blood is a symbol of life" bullhonkey just torks me. The symbol(blood) being more important than the reality(life) is a sick presumption. Especially in this case, and the way they manipulate people who do sincerely wish to please God and who do not realize that they are merely striving to please a man made organization. For this faulty reasoning people die.