Do remember that the WTS changed their policy on transfusions making taking them an act of disassociating yourself not be kicked out by the WTS, disfellowshipping in 2001. That started down the road to protecting themselves legally, making it the individual's choice, choosing to put themselves outside the organization.
*** jv chap. 13 pp. 183-184 Recognized by Our Conduct ***Consistent with that understanding of matters, beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
It is interesting that it is difficult since this 1993 Proclaimers publication to find any mention about transfusions and disfellowshipping in the WTS publications. The new 2010 elders manual finally lists it but the rank and file have not been updated officialy that I am aware of.
*** w61 1/15 p. 63 Questions From Readers *** In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation?
The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes.
*** w61 5/1 pp. 284-285 Do You Remember? ***May a person who takes a blood transfusion be disfellowshiped for it?
Yes, if it is a deliberate act and there is no repenting over the wrong act and asking of forgiveness of God’s congregation. If it is a first offense and the transgressor sees his error, repents of it and begs forgiveness, he may be put on probation and given careful instruction from the Scriptures on the matter.—P. 64.
5-19-2010 (This is a post of mine, notice that the BBC was deceived by the WTS in 2001 as to the dfference between disfellowshipping and disassociation)
There is nothing in print in the WTS publications regarding disassociation. BBC had a reference to it. When the CO visited each congregation, at the elders meeting, he verbally told them that it had changed to disassocation. He read it from a piece of paper with WT header but would not let the elders look at this "non-letter" nor was a copy given to the elders.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/790967.stm (below is quote from this article)
But if this looks like a major climbdown, a spokesman for the organisation - also called Watch Tower - insisted it was merely a procedural change. He said not taking blood remains a biblical injunction and a core tenet of the faith.
If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said. He added that if they repented afterwards, they would be offered spiritual comfort and the possibility of redemption.
But the distinction between what in other words amounts to resigning rather than being sacked, does seem to be a major shift.
While the "new info" that unrepentantly taking a blood tranfusion is now an act of DISASSOCIATION by the jw and not a DISFELLOWSHIPPING act, nothing has been put in writing yet for the rank and file jw that I am aware of. Has anything been said from the platform yet?