X-Message-Number: 1395
Date: 04 Dec 92 00:59:05 EST
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: CRYONICS: Mike Darwin's "instability" (Darwin)
> Date: 3 December, 1992
> From: Mike Darwin
> Subject: Mike Darwin's "instability"
I read with interest Ralph Whelan's comments that it is his opinion
and the opinion (sic) of the Alcor staff that I am "unstable" and
therefore unreliable. I wish to agree with Ralph, however I also wish to
go a little further in analyzing my instability. In particular, I wish to
point out that this is by no means a problem confined to Mike Darwin, but
rather has been endemic to suspension team leaders and personnel from day
one.
If by unstable Ralph means that I will not tolerate the following,
then he is quite right, I am totally unstable and cannot be relied upon:
1) Working conditions where I have little or no confidence in my
ability to carry out cryonic suspensions to the high standard I and others
have made possible in the past.
2) Participation and involvement with an organization which has been
(by Ralph's admission) removing money from the patient care fund to
support non-patient care operations (or to put it more succinctly,
*stealing from the patients*)
3) Communications from the President-elect of Alcor to the effect
that the majority of the current staff and administration feel I am useful
only for political rather than technical reasons.
If being unwilling to work in the face of the the above constitutes
unstable behavior, then I am proudly willing to be be labeled unstable.
However, I would point out that the course of action I chose was not
a unique one in cryonics history. Rather, it has been the ROUTINE one. In
the early 1980's Jerry Leaf made a similar decision vis a vis BACS/Trans
Time. At that time Jerry was the *only source* of quality suspension
capability and he made a very controversial (at that time) decision to
terminate his professional relationship with those organizations. Why did
he do this? At the time his stated reasons were his dissatisfaction with
their handling of patient trust funds, his dissatisfaction at their
attitude that his technical capability was largely a "golden scalpel"
political issue, rather than an issue of real concern about the quality of
the treatment, and his lack of faith in the integrity of the other
organizations' leadership. However, the major reason for the break was
Jerry's dissatisfaction with the way BACS handled the media and cryonics'
image in it. These were painful and difficult decisions for Jerry to make
and it was not easy for him to see friends go into suspension under
conditions that he felt were far less than optimum.
I would also point out that Jerry dealt with Alcor only under
conditions he was satisfied with -- and he set those conditions quite
carefully. I know, I was on the opposite side of the bargaining table
with him more than once. Chief amongst them was that he was in charge,
*totally in charge*. I might also add that Jerry was both an Alcor
Officer and Director as well as majority stockholder and president of the
service provider company (Cryovita) which owned most of the equipment used
to do suspensions. I have never asked for such a level of control.
And yes, there were bitter, frightened people around then, as now,
who labeled Jerry as unstable or unethical. Some even went so far as to
state that "Jerry had a duty to make his services available to the
cryonics community because he was the only source of them..."
I see that the passage of a decade has changed NOTHING. There are
still people around who want to slap the label of (sic) mental instability
with implications of "treasonous" behavior lurking in the background.
I want to make it clear that I hold no loyalty to Alcor as an
institution whatsoever, that I never have, never will, and what's more
don't think anyone should. I think that Alcor as an institution deserves
loyalty and support only insofar as it has integrity and commitment to
principles I believe in. I do have a great deal of loyalty to the
patient's in suspension, but they are most emphatically not Alcor as an
institution either, as I think time will prove.
There is also the issue of other key service providers and volunteers
in the history of cryonics. The surgeon who has serviced both Alcor and
Trans Time in the past whom I will call Dr. X here, is also a case in
point. Dr. X has also refused to do suspensions for another cryonics
organization reportedly because he is dissatisfied with their physical
plant and working conditions. Does this make him "unstable." No.
Unreliable? Yes.
And here we come to the crux of the matter: RELIABILITY. The ugly
fact of the matter is that reliability ultimately results from market
driven diversity. The cryonics community is very small (in absolute
terms) right now and is likely to remain so for the next few years. This
necessarily limits the range of service providers and results in very
undesirable demand/supply situations where unique services are required.
Finding a good quick-printer isn't a problem; finding a good suspension
team leader and staff is.
Unfortunately, the way to solve it is not by having people do the job
who, by Ralph's own admission, don't really want to do it. This is a
disaster and doesn't ever work. Most professions consciously set up the
system to weed out all individuals who are even at all ambivalent about
their desire to enter their chosen profession. The more sensitive the
profession in terms of damage potential for errors/poor behavior, the
tighter the controls. As a very relevant example I would use medicine;
anyone who has been through a residency program can attest to the severity
of the "test" a prospective practitioner is put through. In addition, a
high standard of technical excellence is demanded.
Alcor's approach to solving this problem of reliability seems to be
to train in-house people who are so-called "insiders." They are also
relying on volunteers. These are reasonable strategies within limits.
However, they will not yield technical excellence. I think it also
instructive to review the history of volunteers in Alcor's suspension team
in terms of reliability starting circa 1981:
+Jerry Leaf: reason for leaving: in cryonic suspension
+Virginia Jacobs: reason for leaving: personal reasons,
dissatisfaction with Alcor's volunteer structure
+Betty Leaf: reason for leaving: relocation, personal reasons
+Anna Tyeb: reason for leaving: personal reasons
+Paul Genteman: reason for leaving: unknown
+Brenda Peters: reason for leaving: relocation
+Arthur McCombs: reason for leaving: relocation
+Mike Darwin: stated reason for leaving: see above
+Carlos Mondragon: still active
+Sherry Cosgrove: reason for leaving: relocation, personal reasons
+Fred and Linda Chamberlain: reason for leaving: relocation,
personal reasons
+Bill Jameson: reason for leaving: concern over possible HIV
infection
+Lawrence Gale: still active
+Reg Thatcher: reason for leaving: dissatisfaction with Alcor
volunteer structure
+Scott Greene: status uncertain, has not been involved in recent
suspensions.
+Hugh Hixon, still active
*Thomas Munson: still active
*Tanya Jones: still active
*Ralph Whelan: still active
*Derek Ryan: still active
*Naomi Reynolds: still active
*Arel Lucas: still active
*Russel Whittaker: relocated
* denotes someone who has joined the suspension team since 1988
+ denotes someone who was on the suspension team prior to 1987
The reasons for departure that I list are those that I recall being
given at the time -- they may not be accurate in all cases.
As should be obvious from the above there has been a large turnover
in staff since the mid-1980's, and with exception of Hugh Hixon and
Lawrence Gale, 100% turnover since 1982. Tanya Jones, Ralph Whelan, and
Derek Ryan have all been added in the last 2 years or so.
The vast majority of the people who left, left with very little
notice or none at all. In several cases individuals who left created
gaps in the program. In several cases individuals left immediately after
time consuming training had been completed.
I can well understand the anger that Ralph, Tanya and perhaps some
others must feel at my departure. I felt it towards more than one of the
people listed above when they left. However, I did not accuse them of
being "unstable." Beyond my dismay at this tactic is the very real issue
of turnover and reliability in cryonics organizations. The real
disservice Ralph (and apparently Tanya and Hugh and Carlos) are doing is
not to me, but to the members who's interests are not being served by
examining this problem honestly.
I certainly had no magic solutions during my tenure at Alcor. But
the one thing I was aware of is that characterizing the departure of
others, for whatever reason, from whatever organization, as a character
deficiency would achieve nothing. Similarly, the en masse resignation of
the Alcor Investment Committee (which consists of three very different
people) for reasons very similar to mine should not be characterized as
"unstable" behavior. *Destabilizing*, to be sure, but not *unstable*.
If they hope to have quality people in any area of their operation
Ralph and the others at Alcor must realize that *issues* must be addressed
and that intelligent people (particularly those who are poorly paid or
volunteers) will only work if they are *appreciated, valued* and treated
as colleagues rather than as hired guns or political pawns.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1395