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