Oye Vey! This was quite the conversation to catch up on! As the doctrine that helped me realize I was following the wrong path and not thinking for myself, I both love and hate the discussions on blood. It truly is the single most indefensible doctrine when considering scripture, practice, and the evolution within the organization of what is and is not allowed.
Leviticus 17 is clear. I mean really.........how do you "accidentally" eat an animal found dead on the road? You trip while singing? It could have been valuable livestock as someone presented, or perhaps the person who found it is in dire straights and it was a matter of feeding his family. Either way, the person just remained unclean for a day. Not exactly analogous to being disfellowshipped and cut off from your entire social structure. It seems so clear, its difficult to understand why there is even an argument (much less 13 pages of one).
Fish I once vehemently defended this doctrine on-line. In fact I made the argument that the second mention in Acts regarding keeping from blood, was written by Luke as a sort of prescription. "Good health to you" and all that. What a tool I was! its hard, but you are very close. People die over this. A lot of them. Its important to get right, if you are going to remove a tool by which modern medicine currently and historically has been able to save peoples lives in certain situations.
I don't know......if an Israelite can sell the drowned animal to their neighbor......can JW's donate blood in a blood drive?