Blood Ethics

I heard a story on NPR this morning that piqued my interest. Please feel free to correct my telling of the story.
Researchers have developed "artificial blood," or, more precisely, a substance that approximates red-blood cells. It is still in the experimental phase on animals but is getting close to human trial. The scientific aspects are not all that relevant to this discussion.
The situation that might warrant use of this substance would be an accident victim who is losing blood at a rapid rate. The Rescue Squad could provide this product and the hospital emergency room could use it until the patient is stabilized.

Here is the issue: researchers cannot use "experimental" procedures on a patient without prior consent from the patient. If you are lying beside the road with a severed arm and the EMS want to use this, they can't, unless you give them clear permission.

The researchers and the federal government came up with a plan. The researchers would meet with any civic/religious/political/etc group and make their case. They did, from groups ranging from six to six hundred.
(I thought I heard that Denver was one of the places, but Diane and Bob may know more).

What they got was something called "Community Consensus" that this should go forward. Anyone who did not want to participate, and this is where it gets wierd, could opt out by wearing a color-coded bracelet.

I work in the shadow of one of the better research hospitals in the US and our Rescue Squad is great. I thought this whole thing made sense.

But I got slammed by some of my employees this morning when I told them the story.

Any thoughts? Thanks, rjb