What a great article. I have two friends who serve on HLCs in their areas and in talking to them it seems that they have a two pronged approach depending on the audience.
When talking to doctors it's all about alternative treatments, ethics, non-blood management best practice etc. One of my friends suggested he knew more about the medical techniques and approaches than most doctors who were not specialising in specific areas of practice (e.g. hemotology, anesthestists, consultants etc). It's very much a case of suggesting reasons that are based on costs, technical improvements, ethics etc.
They don't get into the detail of the doctrine with doctors. They certainly don't get into the illogical aspects of the policy.
With Witnesses it's much more making sure they accept some treatment that the WTS considers acceptable, don't embarrass the HLC by accepting something banned and certainly don't die. They avoid the technicalities where they can, keep it simple and try and make the choice as black and white as possible. In the most cases, just so long as the patient knows the treatment is acceptable to the WTS then they are happy.
I often wonder how many HLC members wake up to the nonsense of the blood policy when they get appointed?