X-Message-Number: 169
From att!PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU!Timothy.Freeman Wed May 23 01:44:02 1990
Return-Path: <att!PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU!Timothy.Freeman>
Received: from att.UUCP by whscad1.att.uucp (4.1/SMI-3.2)
	id AA21368; Wed, 23 May 90 01:44:01 EDT
Received: by att.att.com; Wed May 23 01:32:30 1990
Received: from proof.ergo.cs.cmu.edu by PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU id aa15628;
          23 May 90 1:31:10 EDT
Reply-To: Tim Freeman <>
Subject: CRYONICS; legalisms for justifying Donaldson's suspension
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 21 May 90 06:46:30 -0400.
Date: Wed, 23 May 90 01:31:07 EDT
Message-Id: <>

Thanks for the excellent article by Steve Bridge!

Has anyone tried to persuade representatives of cryonics organizations
other than Alcor to post news to this mailing list?

I have a question about the report on the legalisms involved in
Donaldson's pre-mortem suspension.  It doesn't make sense to me, and I
hope that someone out there who understands law better than me can set
me straight.  Here goes:

Steve Bridge says:
>     One of the featured talks was by Thomas Donaldson's attorney,
>Christopher Ashworth.  Ashworth outlined some of the approaches being 
>taken in the law suit.  It is his contention that, since we cannot at
>this time prove whether or not cryonic suspension will actually keep
>someone in such a condition that they could be revived, he cannot
>argue the case on the basis of whether or not cryonics is workable.

I don't understand what "...they could be revived" means legally.

If it means that revival is consistent with what we scientifically
know, then it seems to me that they could prove this in court.

If it means that revival will happen beyond a reasonable doubt, then
it seems to me that California should outlaw lots of other high-risk
surgical procedures by the same criterion.  If a particular class of
patients runs a 10% chance of dying during a coronary bypass
operation, say, then you can hardly say that bypass operations for
these patients succeed beyond a reasonable doubt.

If it means that some individual can imagine revival happening, then
who chooses this individual?

I have a feeling that the phrase really means nothing at all, and yet
we live in a country ruled by people with different but nevertheless
firmly held opinions about what it does mean.  Yuck.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=169