Chesty, serious question. Given the number of aircraft movements in a day/week/year across the globe, and the number of people who as you say have gone down the front of an engine and out the back in pieces, do you really think it is a risk worth inventing ad hoc procedures for?
I suspect that taking a couple of extra minutes to evaluate the system state, have a quick glance at the supp proc if necessary and then have a bit of a think about the ramifications of any subsequent action would be a wise investment.
I get the sense that we, as pilots, often tend to focus on things that we perceive to be significant threats that when reviewed in the cold hard light of day are very low probability events (even if they do have a significant consequence).
This is, in part, ingrained in us from the very beginning. When you think back to pretty much any training there is a big focus on engine failures, seizures, fires etc but if you did a training matrix based on real world threats you might shift the focus to things such as two engine go arounds, unstable approaches etc, particularly if you reviewed the statistics surrounding the number of movements vs number of engine failures/fires/severe damage and compared them to things like movements vs TCAS RA's, unstable approaches, cocked up two engine go arounds etc.
Just a thought
and definitely not a criticism