Spoletta: Maybe they can come up with a no blood transplant card that will allow Witnesses to donate organs to recipients who won't accept transfusions.
That has been considered, and, has already been done in a few cases. Don't let the WT tell you that a JW can't be an organ donor because it has already been done - JWs have donated organs to other JWs. The HLC would have been involved in the cases mentioned at the end of this paragraph (from link in previous post):
Patients refusing to consent to rescue transfusion should not be considered transplant candidates unless they are eligible to receive an organ via living donation, and both the donor and the recipient share the same values with regard to transfusion refusal—for example, both donor and recipient are Jehovah's Witnesses. In this setting, the donor and recipient have the same medicoreligious value and overt clinical expectation with regard to graft management—for example, transfusion will be refused, and both are assuming the risk of death due to refusal of transfusion (admittedly with different risk probabilities). Indeed, such donor transplants have occurred.5,15
The author proposes that matching a non-JW donor to a JW recipient is problematic:
I propose that it is ethically unacceptable to allow a non‐Jehovah's Witness to be a live donor for a Jehovah's Witness recipient because although the donor's risk of dying is significantly reduced due to their willingness to accept blood transfusions, there is a philosophical mismatch between the donor and recipient; namely, there is the inherent expectation that recipients should maximise the life span of the graft they receive, including accepting blood transfusions if clinically needed. While a non‐Jehovah's Witness could argue that he/she can psychologically accept that the graft recipient will refuse transfusion, I argue that this is ethically problematic. A shared medicoreligous value is necessary in order to justify the risk to the donor in a setting where the recipient will knowingly refuse transfusion—risking graft loss and death.
JW to JW transplants can be accomplished when dealing with a live donor but it becomes problematic when considering cadaveric donations:
A policy for matching Jehovah's Witness donors with Jehovah's Witness recipients is only valid in the case of living donation, unless there is a directed cadaveric donation from a Jehovah's Witness to an identified Jehovah's Witness patient needing transplant. In the US, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot direct that upon their death, their organs be donated only to as yet, unidentified Jehovah's Witness patients (Jehovah's Witnesses as a group).16 While such donations might allow Jehovah's Witnesses their own playing field with regard to transplant, a foundational construct which is medicoreligious should not provide ethical justification to permit a private playing field for cadaveric transplant for any group. Lastly, the use of extended criteria organs (also known as “marginal organs”)17 for patients who refuse blood transfusion is ethically inappropriate as all cadaveric organs should be used for patients who affirm, as a condition of being on a waiting list, their commitment to transfusion so as to maximise organ life span—unless there is a cadaveric directed donation between identified Jehovah's Witnesses as described above.