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