if any alternatives would come under consideration, which in turn, would speak directly to the question(s) of whether they are "more work" and/or "less profitable."
"You can't treat leukemia without blood products."
As it relates to the specific case on this thread, the Court decided that doctors should try alternatives first. Relating to the treatment of leukemia, as a general rule, when chemo is used to treat the disease, blood is also used to treat the effects that chemo has on the blood of the patient, as you already explained. As my linked article shows, some JW survive the chemo without blood, others die, but others die too even with the blood. Also as it relates to leukemia, at this time, not based on a doctor's opinion but according to standard medical treatment for the disease, they use blood, not because it is more propfitable or easier but because they know it works- at least short term. Long term, every 9 minutes someone dies from leukemia, even those with the blood transfusions, whether you want to call the BT treatment for leukemia or for chemo.