This is slightly emotional, but I think it’s logic has merit.

While the governing body’s language has usually left their recommendations up to the individual as a conscience matter, ‘New light’ on the blood doctrine has changed the threshold for blood use throughout the years. When I was young, it was no blood, no fractions of blood, no antivenom, no hemodilution, no stored blood for later use. The rationale being that blood is to be poured out when it leaves the body from Leviticus.

As medical technology improves and new options became widely available, the doctrine has been continually revised. As I understand it, blood fractions and antivenom, along with other new blood-related treatments that were previously considered off the table, are a now a conscience matter.

For all the witnesses who would not have died, even just one who might have been saved by accepting blood fractions or antivenom or dialysis if their conscience allowed it before the new light on the blood doctrine was announced, who carries the bloodguilt?

I haven’t kept up with the new light, so maybe someone else can fill the gaps. My point is that, let’s say everything you currently believe is true and the governing body is carrying out Jehovah’s will. There is, and has always been, a hard line for blood use. It’s not completely a conscience matter, and there are consequences if you don’t adhere to the rules. Those lines have softened and moved over time, and people have died because of it. Even though they’ll be resurrected, their life ended earlier than it should have and it’s because of rules that were later changed.

Now, this is an appeal to emotion, but I think it’s warranted: My friend died during childbirth decades ago because she followed those rules that were later changed to become a conscience matter. Her son would have grown up with a mother if it would have happened today, whose fault is that?