X-Message-Number: 1517 Date: 27 Dec 92 02:33:15 EST From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CRYONICS: a few replies Hi again, everyone. I'm writing on the day after Christmas, and so can't really wish everyone a Merry Christmas (but can wish them a Happy New Year!). In Australia and England, though, there is a tradition called "Boxing Day", the day after Christmas, when you leave out a box of gifts for people like the mailman and the local poor. So Happy Boxing Day! In any case, some further comments. To Saul, re splitting Alcor: As I see it, the major problem with an organization that relies on support from people close to its patients is that those people, too, will eventual- ly also be suspended, and their children/relatives too, and so on. In the end, quickly or not, most suspension patients won't have anyone around to care for them WHO ACTUALLY KNEW THEM AS PEOPLE. So just how do we arrange for that care? The ultimate, most stable body of people who have an interest in caring for suspension patients consists of those who have arranged for their own suspension. For Alcor, that is the members of Alcor presently alive. Secondly, you argue that it will be clear when to transfer patients to the storage organization. I say that it won't, in practice, be at all clear; when I said that relations between Alcor and the local Coroner were "friendly" I meant, basically, that at first there was no sign of any threat to Dora Kent. True, the Coroner wanted to autopsy at least some of her, but that wasn't (at first) really a threat. Now certainly after SOME period of time it will be safe to carry out a transfer: but just exactly when? Essentially this means that the suspension organization would have to be equipped to store patients for a year or more, while all the (rather slow) legal issues were settled. Besides a rise in the cost of suspension (by duplicating facilities) there really isn't any obvious point at which transfer may be carried out for arbitrary patients. You also argue that if the suspension patients had been stored by a separate organization, then the Coroner would not have been able to threaten them. Well, it would certainly have been harder in the Dora Kent case, if the storage organization had been outside the county. But I think that focuses too much on one particular case. Suspension organizations exist only because their patients will eventually be stored; anyone who wants to bring down cryonics will hardly care about any legal distinction between organizations. And anyone trying to make a political point by THREATENING to bring down cryonics wouldn't make such a distinct- ion either. So just how do we really remove any risks by separating the organizations. I would agree that concern about the constitution of Alcor is quite justifiable. In one of your messages you suggest (feel free to explain!) that you're unhappy that Alcor is a storage organization because (among other things) Keith Henson is on its Board. That is a constitutional issue, not at all an issue of separating off the storage organization. And suppose you DO separate off the storage organization, after which someone to which you object ends up on the Board of this NEW organization. What will you do then? I said in my last posting on this subject that the REAL issue which concerned you was that of the Constitution of Alcor, specifically how Board members are chosen. I don't think you've really answered that at all. I also agree that it is a real concern, even though I'm perhaps not so unhappy as you with the former (or present!) Board. We must ALL start thinking seriously about this issue, since it bears strongly on the future of cryonics itself. And I think that proposing to separate Alcor into two organizations, at best, would only put off the time when we needed to think about it: a result neither healthy nor wise. And most important, neither of us can expect to never need suspension. No member of Alcor can expect that. It's one thing to make an organization depending on the presence of particular people; it's quite another to work out how to make an organization that will continue on its course despite the absence of everyone who is now a member. In its own mild cryonical way, THAT question forces us to consider our own mortality. To Steve Harris: Yes, we are in a prison camp. However, as I see it, we have no need for Alcor itself to become associated with any battles against the FDA. I remember the sixties, and agitation against Vietnam: there were calls for all kinds of organizations (astronomy societies, cooking clubs, etc etc) to become involved in the good fight. I just don't believe that Alcor, as an organization, can contribute much at all to any struggle against the FDA. MEMBERS of Alcor, of course, can help Saul and others a good ddeal. To Charles Platt (and Ralph Whelan): I personally believe that an ALCOR REVIEW separate from CRYONICS would be to the detriment of CRYONICS. CRYONICS should and must print reports on all the dissent and argument currently going on. It's supposed to report on cryonics, isn't it? That dissent is part of cryonics. Indeed, I think it's just as much a part of the gritty scene as any other side of Alcor. Naturally, keeping such a column would mean extra work. Charles Platt might very well be in charge. But making a separate review, for the eyes of members only, stinks too much of showing nonmembers only the Potemkin Villages in Alcor: all the nice parts, with none of the bad. And I don't even think it would make Alcor look bad. Can anyone name any organization within which all is peace and light? Best, long life, and Happy Boxing Day: Thomas Donaldson Distribution: >INTERNET: Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1517