X-Message-Number: 1223
Date: 23 Sep 92 07:21:37 EDT
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: CRYONICS - TERMINAL SIGN-UPS

Re: Terminal sign-ups and Alcor dues structure

    We should not be talking of 'discouraging' terminal sign-ups.  If
cryonics has reached the stage where terminal people are being
attracted in growing numbers, I say that is great.  Because of this
phenomenon, we may be able to reach the high volumes of suspensions
necessary for true economies of scale and the employment of full-time
professionals that much earlier.  Come to think of it, maybe we
*should* be aggressively (while still being completely honest in
describing the unproven, experimentally nature of cryonics) marketing
the terminally ill and requiring that they make a prepayment of say
10K upon sign-up.  This prepayment money would go into a special fund
for the purpose of hiring and training full time professionals.
    Here is another point of disagreement that I have with what I have
read so far on the NET.  Everyone seems to be assuming that the dues
that we pay each year are pure profit for Alcor and that all members
should pay roughly the same lifetime amount.  This is patently
ridiculous on several counts.
     First, at least part of the dues are to cover the maintenance and
depreciation costs of all the necessary equipment, supplies, training,
etc. needed to respond quickly to a members' deanimation (that is why
it is called an 'Emergency Responsibility Fee').  This is covered
equally well by short or long term members since it is, presumably,
consumed at the rate at which it is paid.  If, in actuality, this is
not so, then we should change our fees appropriately.
    Second, some of the fee undoubtedly goes for other benefits:
magazine, conferences, social events, etc., which are subsidized by
money and/or volunteer labor.  Again the short term member has
correspondingly less time to gain from these benefits and should not
have to pay for a lifetimes' worth of them.
    Finally, even if the dues were pure profit, Alcor would be using
up that money at the rate it is being paid and would not have more
need per year for money from short term members than for long term
ones.
    In addition, the care of the patient once he gets into storage is
supposed to be more than paid for out of the portion of his funding
that is paid to Alcor upon his deanimation.  If this is really true
then we get equal benefit to the viability of long term patient care
from all suspendees whether of short or long membership duration. 
Again since in this area also, higher volumes will lead to lower
costs, we should *always* be encouraging rather than discouraging
suspensions.
    I think that a closer analysis will show that the entire problem
with terminal sign-ups is twofold.  First, the problem of funding
remote standby (as opposed to emergency response) must be solved for
all sign-ups but is more likely to be long, difficult and expensive
with late sign-ups (mainly due to the lack of cryonics knowledge in
the patient, his relatives and his medical care-givers).
    Second, if we are really starting to attract terminal sign-ups,
then our volumes will start increasing dramatically and a transport
and suspension team composed of relatively few people who must take
time away from jobs (be it with Alcor or outside) will not be able to
take the pace.  Perhaps the suspensions of June 1992 should be seen as
a warning that a radical change in the organization of transports and
suspensions is needed!

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1223