I'm not a god-fearing individual, but when I was still a believer, many suns ago, it occurred to me that the blood doctrine had an idolatrous foundation; it was one of the initial anti-WT thoughts in my mind that eventually led to me leaving the religion and ultimately (and somewhat ironically) to atheism.
The bible says that one should 'abstain from blood', and putting aside whether this is a mistranslation of bloodshed (which I've never bought), the WT are quite picky about which commandments they follow; they don't observe the sabbath, and they've even provided justifications for lying, so why the preoccupation with the blood commandment? And why is it so serious a matter that it's a disfellowship-worthy offence? The justification I was always given by elders was that blood is sacred, it's a symbol of life, and whilst the commandment to abstain from blood clearly meant that one shouldn't eat it, it's not unreasonable on the surface to extrapolate it to include transfusions (although some would disagree).
The problem with this reasoning of course is that by abstaining from blood transfusions, death from massive blood-loss is a possibility, unlike with abstaining from eating it. And so by suggesting that a person potentially sacrifice their life for the sake of maintaining the sanctity of blood, the WT is essentially advising that its followers put the symbol of life ahead of life itself, and putting the symbol of something ahead of what it represents is quite literally idolatry.
If blood is sacred because life is sacred, then surely life should come first, as in the case of the smoking ban. And in the case of blood transfusions, you're generally better off with one that without, regardless of the risks; all medical procedures involve risk, even a simple anaesthetic presents a threat to life, so the risk-factor is no excuse, not unless the WT bans anaesthetics.