X-Message-Number: 1544 Subject: CRYONICS Alcor Unbundling From: (Edgar W. Swank) Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 10:46:35 PST Thomas Donaldson wrote in CRYOMSG 1523: I don't even totally disagree with him [Saul Kent] about splitting up Alcor: I think that serious thought should be given about splitting off the SUSPENSION activity of Alcor (that is, the performance of the operation itself). That activity is just the kind that would benefit from business competition. Alcor would then become a client of one or several suspension organizations. But the Board and membership of Alcor would remain the same, and patients once suspended would be transferred to Alcor. I'm glad to see an Alcor member express these views. Such an "unbundling" of suspension activity would presumeably make the high quality transport/suspension provided to Alcor members available to members of other cryonics organizations, such as ACS. As an ACS member I'd like to have that choice. I don't follow why Thomas doesn't also want to unbundle long-term storage service. This also, it seems to me, would benefit from business competition. Of course Alcor members stored by a third party would remain Alcor members and Alcor would have the right to move them to another storage vendor should Alcor deem it in the best interest of its patients to do so. ACS already has an agreement with CI for long-term whole-body storage of ACS members who elect that lower-cost option. -- (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Silicon Valley, Ca Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1544