The only thing I can say, is that the blood doctrine nearly cost my father his life twice, and it ended up costing my brother in law his life 4 years ago. The figure of 250,000 is not unreasonable IMO, but the problem is that the refusal to accept a transfusion is quite often, the catalyst that causes something else to happen which ultimately causes the death. In my brother in law's case, refusing a blood transfusion was not listed as the reason he died, even though it was directly responsible for his demise. The official version is that he died from cancer, so anyone outside the family is not going to know the roll that this damn doctrine actually played.
I imagine that the same scenario has been played a thousand times over the last 50 years.
