In turn the drug company would ask the WT to clarify with it's members that this is ok to do.
In an ideal world, yes, the WT would "clarify with it's members that this is ok to do". Watchtower Land doesn't work that way.
Can I have a show of hands as to how many of you participated in that 'clarification' when it came to Hemopure? Or, were you just as surprised and a bit confused as to why it was all of a sudden okay to use cows' blood? And for all of you who got Hemopure, were you told that the risk was higher than what you would normally get? Did you know that you were participating in a clinical trial?
Of course I understand the 'informed consent' and LAR consent...but, really, what were you told about Hemopure?
And here is another thing. Study design. A great deal of the discussion in the FDA document was about study design. In addition to the JW group being an ideal control group in that they don't have a RESUS level, the same model offers drawbacks. As the one speaker I quoted above pointed out, such a study does not generalize to the larger population. The fact that a JW refuses a resusitation by alternative, already proven means (blood transfusion) makes them a poor model for predicting outcomes in other patients. Adding another arm to an internal JW clinical trial, one that would mimic external factors better, would make the trial far more benefical. The WTS needed to refine their blood doctrine just a little bit - they needed one more 'arm' to the studies.
And that happened. JWs are now given the option to sign a 'letter of understanding' for their children. I am not sure if they have that option on all the cards now.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/244052/1/Blood-transfusion-Letter-of-Understanding
The doctrine changed in response to the demands of medical research.