X-Message-Number: 1503
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:29:24 EST
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: CRYONICS  Reply to McCrary, Herman, and Donaldson

I've been in Florida for the past week and have been unable to reply to
any postings on Cryonet.  What follows are my replies to recent
postings by Lola McCrary, Scott Herman, and Thomas Donaldson.

To Lola McCrary: 

In your posting on Cryonet last week, you accused me of having a
"double standard" in calling for Keith Henson to resign from the Alcor
Board because of his criticism of President-Elect Steve Bridge after I
defended Brenda Peters when she criticized Alcor's outgoing President
Carlos Mondragon earlier in the year.

In my opinion, they were two different cases.  Brenda's criticism of
Carlos was based upon Carlos' actions as President and CEO of Alcor. 
The reason I didn't criticize Brenda about her criticism of Carlos was
because I agreed with most of what she said about Carlos' performance as
Alcor's President.

I have no problem with Keith (or any other Board member) criticizing
Steve about his performance as Alcor President and CEO, but I think it
would be appropriate to wait until Steve actually takes office before
starting to do so.  As I said in my open letter to the Alcor Board, I
strongly supported Carlos for four years before I reluctantly came to
the conclusion that it might be desirable to replace him as President
of Alcor.  

Your suggestion that I might be going to jail, presumably because of my
problems with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) introduced an
extremely complex issue into the discussion without any explanation.  

My only concern is that your mention of the possibility of my going to
jail could be construed as suggesting that I might be guilty of some
crime, which I am not.


To Scott Herman:

I'm sorry you think I wasn't interested in speaking with you when I saw
you at Alcor on several occasions, but we were never introduced and I
was only there a short time.  I've always been appreciative of Alcor
members who volunteer their time to help the organization.  I've been
told that your contributions were quite valuable and so I'd like to
take this occasion to, belatedly, express my appreciation for your
efforts in helping Alcor.  I hope you will consider doing so again.


To Thomas Donaldson:

On Dec. 12 (# 1438), Thomas Donaldson posted his reply to my memo of
arguments in favor of creating a separate patient-care organization
which I had mailed to him.  I have not posted this 11-page memo on
cryonet because of its length, but will instead respond to his reply to
my memo.  If any cryonetters would like a copy of my memo, please send
me your address and I will send it to you by regular mail.

I believe that a separate patient-care organization would be less
vulnerable to legal and government attack than an organization which
also does cryonic suspensions.  Thomas disagrees with my assessment. 
He argues that "...up to now the only lawsuits INDIVIDUAL cryonic
societies have faced (and ALCOR potentially faces) are those from
disgruntled relatives who want the suspension funds BACK. If different
organizations had dealt with storage and suspension, BOTH would have
been attacked: and if these relatives act solely for the money involved
they would first go after the storage organization, where most of the
money lies.  The funds devoted to the suspension operation, unless
augmented by punitive damages, would barely pay the cost of recovering
them."

Thomas is right about a separate storage organization not being
protection against lawsuits filed after the legal responsibility and the
funds for long-term patient care have been transfered to the storage
organization.  The only way liability could be reduced would be to
postpone transfering the legal responsibility and funds for long-term
patient care to the storage organization in high-risk cases, until the
risk is reduced or eliminated.  In some cases, we should be able to
identify potentially hostile relatives prior to the patient being placed
into suspension.  In other cases, we should be able to identify
potentially hostile relatives during or shortly after the patient has
been suspended.  In still other cases, it may be impossible to identify
a hostile relative until long after the suspension has taken place. 
The extent to which we can deal with the concerns of hostile relatives
before transfering the legal responsibility and funds for patient care
to the storage organization will determine the extent to which we can
protect existing patients from the liabilities of newly suspended
patients.

Thomas then goes on to argue that "...separation of storage and
suspension would not have helped the kind of problems Alcor faced with
Dora Kent.  At first Alcor's officers, following procedures they had
followed repeatedly in the past, believed that everything was in good
order.  Dora would soon be encapsulated in a permanent location.  And,
in fact, the initial contacts between Alcor and the Riverside Coroner
were, if anything, actually friendly.  If we had had two organizations
rather than one, the Coroner would have tried to attack the STORAGE
organization and threatened, as he did, to impound all the patients, not
just Dora Kent."

I disagree.  We knew very early on in the Dora Kent case that it was
going to be a Coroner's case.  We did not believe everything was in
"good order" and we were very concerned about the possible consequences
of the Coroner's actions.  Moreover, the early contacts between Alcor
personnel and the Coroner were never "friendly"; they were at best
cordial.  There's no doubt in my mind that, if we had had a separate
patient care organization during the Dora Kent crisis, we would not have
tranfered the legal responsibility and funds for her long-term care to
that organization until the risk to Dora had ended.

The only reason the Coroner threatened the other patients in the Dora
Kent case was because they couldn't get their hands on Dora and were
tyring to get the Alcor staff to tell them where she was.  If the other
patients had been in a separate facility owned and managed by people
other than Alcor's leaders, the Coroner would have been, in my opinion,
less likely to threaten Alcor staff members with the destruction of the
other patients.  And, if the patients had been stored in any county
other than Riverside County, the Coroner would have had no jurisdiction
over them.

I agree with Thomas that having a separate patient-care organization
would not have helped us in our battle with the California Health
Department.

Thomas argues that "...a suspension fund should NOT be thought of purely
as a sum of money to be put out in some secure investment....The problem
with that approach (he argues) is that, especially now, it's quite easy
to imagine circumstances in which a refusal to spend some part of the
principal would be the height of folly.  What if Alcor people learned of
an imminent raid by government agents to sequester all the patients?  If
extra money must be spent to turn all patients into neuropreservation
patients and move them elsewhere at short notice, it would be well
spent."

I agree.  The purpose in caring for suspended patients in a separate
patient care organization is not to place any restrictions on the
expenditure of patient-care money except that it be in the best
interests of the patients.  In a separate organization devoted strictly
to patient care, the Directors of the organization would, in my opinion,
be more likely to adhere to that principle.

Thomas says that "History is full of flux and change.  If we rely on one
country or one law, in the long term THAT RELIANCE WILL PROVE WRONG. 
That is why the continued existence of an organization devoted to
suspension patients becomes so important."

I agree, except that I believe that an organization devoted solely to
patient care would provide better protection than an all-purpose
cryonics organization.  Right now, Alcor is located in a single county
within the borders of a single country (the United States).  Its burden
is to serve the needs of its living members as well as its members in
suspension.  I think there are inherent conflicts of interest between
these two burdens, and would prefer to see patients cared for in an
organization without these conflicts of interest.

Thomas says that "The best protection consists of the members of the
cryonics society itself, who will want to see your suspension through to
a successful revival because they too believe that someday they will be
suspended and face the same problem."

I agree with Thomas, once again, except that I would like to rely
primarily upon members who want to be suspended themselves, but who also
have a strong personal bond with the existing patients, such as members
who already have loved ones in suspension.  I've found that members who
don't know any of the patients in suspension, which includes the
majority of Alcor members, tend to be relatively unconcerned about
them, and sometimes even forget they exist.

Thomas misrepresents my position when he says that "Saul feels that the
Board of Alcor may not be trustworthy, but that...the Board of a
storage society WILL be trustworthy..."  

That's not what I believe.  The issue of the trustworthiness of the
Board is not directly relevant to my arguments in favor of a separate
patient-care organization.  In fact, I've come to the tentative
conclusion that, it would be desirable to have a separate patient-care
organization even if Alcor's management was entirely beyond reproach.

I thank Thomas for his thoughtrful ideas and arguments and hope he will
continue to offer his thoughts on the subject.

Saul Kent



Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1503