I applaud the intention completely, but I fear that it can never have any real value.
The % of cases in which the lack of blood treatment is the fully proven cause of death would be close to zero I think.
The listings in the database would have to figure out how much of a part the policy played in the outcome. This would be so subjective if it included an honest representation of all the variables it would be hard to figure out the real impact of JW policy. I think that is the underlying problem that Shilmer, AJWRB and others have consistently faced in trying to represent the facts.
To be meaningful the database would also have to include ALL the outcomes for refusals of treatment - even the positive ones - and I think this data would be impossible to gather. If you disagree with this last statement then bear in mind that if you take the risk to reject any form of blood then there may be an increased chance of reduced complications if you survive. I think this is generally accepted.
Don't get me wrong. I am firmly against the JW blood policy being enforced on its members and I really wish the impact were measurable in some significant way. But it is simply not like that.
This is what allows the GB to keep maintaining the pressure under the radar. If the impact was truly known then it would be much harder for them to hide their convoluted policies.
If someone could show me where I am wrong I would consider donating time to research this and contributing to the project.
FG