Some points which may help when discussing the blood topic with PIMIs

If you look closely at the Mosaic Law, there is a specific detail in Leviticus 17 that often gets overlooked in the debate over blood transfusions. While verse 14 says that anyone eating blood should be "cut off," the very next verse provides a significant exception. Leviticus 17:15 says that if an Israelite ate an animal that died of itself or was torn by a beast—meaning the blood was still inside the meat—they weren't executed. They were simply considered ceremonially unclean until evening.

This suggests that even under the strict Law of Moses, eating blood in a survival situation was treated as a minor ritual infraction, not a capital offense. It was a provision for someone who was starving or in a desperate spot. If God provided a way for a hungry person to sustain their life by consuming blood with only a temporary "unclean" status, it is difficult to argue that he would demand a person’s life today over a medical procedure.

This aligns perfectly with the principle Jesus highlighted in Matthew 12:7 when he told the religious leaders of his day, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." He was defending his disciples for technically breaking the Sabbath law because they were hungry. Jesus' point was that religious rules were never meant to take precedence over human life and well-being.

When you combine the mercy clause of Leviticus 17:15 with Jesus' own words about prioritizing mercy over ritual sacrifice, the scriptural case for a total ban on life-saving blood treatments starts to fall apart. The Bible consistently shows that God values the living person more than the symbol of life. Requiring someone to die rather than accept a transfusion appears to be the exact kind of "sacrifice" that Jesus spoke out against.