The blood issue was one of the key factors in my awakening and remains one of my favourite topics as it is nothing more than a completely illogical mess.
You have a symbol that is worth more than the thing it symbolises.
You have arbitrary rules with no scriptural backing that determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.
You have outrageous logical inconsistencies like refusing to donate blood because it should be poured out yet be perfectly happy to accept fractions of blood that have come from blood donated by others.
You have repeated straining of the gnat with semantics to try and justify the unjustifiable.
You have a policy so complex that people don't really know what it is they can do and default to the most lenient interpretation depending on what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable. So much for conscience.
When the issue raises it's head then they need a cohort of heavies to try and intervene in people's personal treatments, What's worse is that individuals seek the advice of the HLC ahead of their medical consultants. One day the elder could be making arguments about medical procedures to a sick Witness and the same HLC elder could be coming round to wash the windows of the consultant the next day.
If an individual takes a conscience decision not to have treatments like cell salvage they are treated like a pariah for creating questions in the minds of the experts about what Witnesses really believe.
Finally no one can say what the policy shall be tomorrow. What is acceptable today may be unacceptable or, more likely, what is unacceptable becomes acceptable. Life changing decisions are being made on a policy that has changed out of all context over time and no doubt will continue to do so.
Thanks to the entrenched nature of GB thinking, however, I think it's more likely that we would see change to the understanding of 1914 than the retraction of the prohibition of blood transfusions.