Thank you so much, Barbara, for posting this. It's extremely interesting to read an article with such balanced and non-judgmental reasoning. Of course, you'd expect that in a medical ethics article from such a prestigious facility, but unfortunately, that is not always the case. Some medical journal contributors have used their positions to promote their own agendas at the expense of truth and honesty. But that's another topic...
To be clear, I am personally judgmental towards those who would let their children and spouses die or waste scarce medical resources on the say-so of their self-appointed religious leaders. Religious superstitions have no place in medical decisions when those decisions affect anyone other than the patient himself or herself, and then only if that patient is an adult who can provide fully informed consent, is under no coercion or duress, and willingly accepts total and sole responsibility for any outcome and the ramifications thereof. So there!
I have no doubt that some JW's will point at this and claim it amounts to religious discrimination. They think they are so special that THEIR superstitions should be catered to regardless of how it affects others. I beg to differ.
I believe this article recommends an outstandingly reasonable policy. I hope it gets adopted nationwide.