I appreciate your input onto this subject. First, let me say that you are not alone in your plight. Many in our midst have encountered conditions and experiences such as yours, and it has raised some disturbing concerns.
You feel that sharing your feelings with the Society would be a waste of time. Actually the Society wants to know how you feel. Have you ever considered suggesting some change to them? Consider the following.
At times, some bring to the attention of the "slave" class various doctrinal or organizational matters that they feel ought to be revised. Certainly, suggestions for improvement are proper, as are inquiries for clarification.—Loyally Submitting to Theocratic Order, The Watchtower, 1982 6/1: 20.
You can see from that information that requesting clarification of some teaching or suggesting a change in some doctrine is okay. The Society does not take umbrage at such letters as long as they are respectful.
You mentioned that there are no simple answers to the questions of does "abstain from blood" mean abstain from blood transfusion? Actually there is a simpler answer than you might expect. Below I will highlight some teachings of the Society followed by a question. Considering the Society’s teaching on those basic areas present a surprising answer to the question, does "abstain from blood" mean abstain from blood transfusion.
1. The Apostolic Decree (to "abstain from blood") is not based at all upon the Mosaic Law or elements of the Mosaic Law. The Apostolic Decree is based strictly upon events and laws predating the Mosaic Law. Regarding blood, AD is based strictly upon the Noachian Law. (See United in Worship of the Only True God, page 149, par. 8)
2. The Noachian Law applied only to the lower animals. It only prohibits eating blood taken from flesh killed for food. (See The Watchtower of 1950 page 158, par. 1)
3. Deuteronomy 14:21 identifies that sanctity of life was the key element of the Noachian Law, not blood. That text indicates that eating flesh from an animal already dead (unbled) was okay for those under the Noachain Law, which was all mankind. Israel was held to a higher standard of adherence because besides being under the Noachian Law they were also under the Mosaic Law, which utilized blood for sacred sacrificial use, thus their complete abstinence from blood was legislated (even unbled meat from an animal found dead). (Read very carefully the text of Leviticus 17:10-12. It states the two-fold reason that Israel was held to a higher standard of adherence to the Noachian Law than the rest of mankind.) (See also Insight on the Scriptures Volume I, page 345, par. 6) Eating unbled animal flesh from an animal found dead was not a violation of the Noachian Law for those under it alone, because such an animal had not been killed for food. In the text of Deuteronomy 14:21 killing is the key element missing, which allowed eating the blood of the dead animal. Again, the Noachian Law only prohibited eating blood taken from flesh killed for food. (Note that the "alien resident" and "foreigner" of Deuteronomy 14:21 were, in God’s eyes, under the Noachian Law.)
Here is the question:
Since the Society teaches that "abstain from blood" is only a reaffirmation of the Noachian Law and that law only applies to lower animals, then should we teach that ‘abstain from blood" means abstain from transfusion of donor blood?
Here is another question:
Since the Mosaic Law was admittedly required a higher standard of adherence to blood prohibitions and since Christians are not under that law, should we use elements of that law to clarify the Apostolic Decree?
Answers might be far more simple that we have taught in the past.