X-Message-Number: 1760
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 21:35:34 EST
From:  (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: CRYONICS: 


> Message: #1753 - Cryonics Suspension Act (1993)
> From: Graham Wilson <>
> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 16:43:48 GMT
> 
> I would like to say thank you very much to all the people who have helped
> me with my thesis reserch on cryonics over the last year or so. 
> As promised I enclose a copy of the draft Cryonics Suspension Act (1993)
> which is part of my final LL.B. Law Degree project.
> 
> The act essentially sets up a regulatory body and most of the controls 
> on cryonics contained within it are statutory based. Some people will, no
> doubt, argue that the act is too complex and that cryonics institutions
> are perfectly capable of administering the interests of patients. 
> Unfortunately, from what I have read and seen I cannot agree with this 
> statement. 
> 
> Although I have been impressed with the operation of Alcor and other
> cryonics companies I believe that a cryonic patient requires statutory
> protection, rather than a reliance on someone's "word" or through 
> haphazzard judge-made law each time cryonics comes before the courts.

Well, being, more or less, an anarchist, I have difficulty understanding
what precisely it is that such an act might protect one against. I can
understand prehaps modifying the laws to eliminate the Rule against
Perpetuities, and to eliminate other barriers to cryonics contracts, but
I do not see why it is that such contracts couldn't simply be handled
via ordinary contract law. If the contract explicitly states the obligations
of all the parties, how can it be any worse than a statute that
explicitly states all the obligations? And why do we assume that regulatory
agencies will do anything other than what all the other regulatory
agencies have done over the years, namely become a burdensome threat
to all concerned other than the bureaucrats.

Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1760