Their ruling, in my opinion, is reasonable, whereby the spirit of Gods law to abstain from blood is observed and they have avoided the pitfall of deciding the minute details for every Christian conscience.
To observe the "spirit" of God's law regarding blood would mean not to eat it. Although there is still some blood in all meat that we consume, the Jews knew what was meant by this law, and that was largely to eat of only properly bled meat.
When Jesus invited the apostles to symbolically drink his blood because it meant life, this idea did not contradict the "spirit" of God's law, although some took it that way. In this action, Christ established an example of how blood can acceptably be used as a means of sustaining life. Clearly, Jehovah's Witnesses are taking "abstain from blood" out of context in their decision to deny themselves and their children access to proper medical treatment. Using this same reasoning, we would also not be permitted to accept salvation through the ransom sacrifice because we would be forced to abstain from Jesus' life-giving blood.
Edited by - professor on 22 June 2002 13:15:31