Of course parents force court orders; they force the hospital to seek them
So what's your point?
Your paragraph can be summed in one clean sentence: parents, while unable to actively seek a court order, can passively force a court order by refusing to provide the hospital consent to provide life-sustaining treatment to their minor child.
Now, what does that have to do with whether or not the LoUs indicate a change in WTBTS blood policy?
The following was your original assertion: The fact is that a couple of decades ago, it was commonplace for parents to force a court order, whereas now they will sign this letter and not pursue their legal rights, whether they formally waive them or not.
What evidence do you have that JW parents' behavior has changed? What evidence do you have that they used to passively force court order but now they sign these LoUs and "do not pursue their legal rights?"
The LoU/Acknowledgement Statements are legally useless documents; therefore, there is no harm to the WTBTS if JWs sign these.
Respectfully, I do not think this is the issue. The WTBTS cannot be legally "harmed" no matter the outcome.
Again, what's your point?
Allow me to rephrase my statement: The LoU/Acknowledgement Statements are legally useless documents; therefore, an HLC member can recommend the parent sign them and there is no harm to the parents' legal rights to latter oppose a blood transfusion. Consequently, there is no harm to the WTBTS's blood policy.
So, now that we have that fixed, what does whether or not the WTBTS can be '"legally harmed" have to do with the topic of this thread, which is whether or not the LoUs indicate a change in WTBTS policy? (BTW, I didn't say they were legally harmed; the harm would be to the perceived integrity of its policy.)
As I said, I'm open to being persuaded. However, your responses to my posts have done nothing more than muddy the waters by pointing out errors in my merely tangentially-linked statements. These are commonly known as 'red herring' arguments. While I appreciate your concern that all my statements be the most literally accurate, I am still looking for persuasive arguments.
Do you have any evidence that these LoUs indicate a change in the WTBTS's blood policy as is the assertion in the article, your assertion, and the title of this thread?