X-Message-Number: 1769 From: Graham Wilson <> Subject: CRYONICS Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 12:40:02 WET > > Message: #1760 - Re: Cryonics Suspension Act > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 21:35:34 EST > From: (Perry E. Metzger) > Message-Subject: CRYONICS: > Perry E. Metzger writes : > 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. Graham Wilson writes - ** Firstly, I should point out that the act should be interpreted with regard to English and not American law. However, for the majority of the sections the overlap will be the same. Perry asks what the act will protect one against ? I think the object of the act would be to protect the interests of potential suspendees and cryonic patients against abuse and dishonesty from any new fraudulent would-be cryonics company. It would also protect the patient against relatives who might not agree with cryonic suspension. For example, in English law there is nothing to stop your relatives having you autopsied in order to prevent your cryonic suspension. Similarly, in England the powers of Coroner would appear to be absolute and unchallengable. He too could arrange for your autopsy. At the moment current contract law cannot cope with cryonics. Issues such as privity of contract and the assessment and allocation of damages are inappropriate for our purposes. It was, therefore, necessary to propose changes to basic contractual principles if a cryonic contract were to be legally valid under English law. Statute law would, in effect, provide the judiciary with the basic ground rules for cryonic contracts. It would then be up to individual judges to apply the rules accordingly and develop the principles and policies contained therein. I would agree with Perry that Regulatory Authorities are not always the most appropriate organ to admister a system of rules and regulations. However, I cannot see any other alternative. At the moment, it could be argued, that under English law that although cryonics it not specifically illegal, there is nothing to say that it is actually legal. If the judiciary refuse to acknowledge the rights of the cryonic patient then cryonics might as well be illegal by statute for all the good it would do. Cryonics is therefore faced with a choice. It can either wait until legal problems start to crop up and then take each individual issue before the courts. This would take considerable time which would be of disadvantage to each cryonic patient. Similarly, would organisations such as Alcor be able to fund expensive and continuous legal litigation ? I would doubt it. The creation of the Cryonics Regulatory Authority would be based along similar lines to the current Embryological reserach authority which was created to control and regulate research and experimentation upon fetal material. This organisation has been effective and provided a practical balanced approach to regulation. I also feel that any cryonics patient should know that there is someone external to a cryonics company who will have the power to represent their interests accordingly. With respect to companies such as Alcor, I think that people are placing far too much faith in them to guarantee to maintain a cryonic patient in suspension way into the future. Alcor is a commerical company operating in a commerical environment. For any company- cryonics or otherwise- this in itself is fraught with dangers. The Regulatory Authority is the only way in which the patient's interests can be guarantee. I cannot think of a simpler or more effective way in which to achieve this protection. -- ********************************************************* * Graham Wilson * * * LL.B. Law III * Coventry University * ********************************************************* Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1769