snare&racket,
I agree doctors need to be fully informed on the coercive aspect of Watchtower doctrine onto the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I also very much encourage that you flesh out the topic you speak toward by researching and organizing your findings into a paper.
On the point you raise the murky ground is paternalism. That is, contemporary society in developed countries has constructed an ethic around treating patients as they wish to be treated whether a doctor agrees the choice is medically sound so long as the patient is considered a competent adult.
Because a competent adult can be mislead to hold a strong conviction that is not based on sound thinking and because a competent adult can choose to ignore countering information, it leaves ethicists with the dilemma of whether to treat such an adult based on their own unsound choice or as the treating clinician would decide.
Contemporary ethicists have come down on the side of treating a competent adult as they wish to be treated regardless of how unsound it is. Or, at least this is the case with patients refusing certain treatments. Whether a doctor would relent to providing a certain patient request is another thing altogether. A doctor would probably agree to withhold blood transfusion on the request of a competent adult patient, but the same doctor would probably would not agree to administer some untested alternative simply because it was requested by the patient.
During the conduct of research you’ll run across the issue of paternalism. I look forward to reading what you come up with.
Marvin Shilmer