X-Message-Number: 1785
From:
Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Wells, Stone
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 22:47:08 PST
In msg #1762 Clarissa Wells writes:
>Tucked away in an obscure corner of the most recent Cryonics magazine
>I found mention that at a recent business meeting, Keith Henson
>poroposed that if a member gives up his/her suspension membership, the
>member would not be allowed to re-join Alcor without being approved by
>a majority of the board. Why would Mr. Henson propose this measure?
>Perhaps because Mike Darwin resigned from Alcor, and made some harsh
>statements, and Mr. Henson would like to block him from re-joining in
>the future?
The entire meeting is on tape, so I might get it and transcribe the
debate around this issue. However, you need a little background to
understand why some other board members and I are concerned. A case
can be made that one of the "former members" cost Alcor $500k or more.
This same person has been overheard in recent months telling people
how they can be frozen by Alcor *without* becoming a member--which, if
they believe it, could lead to their never being suspended--and
sometime before that nearly compromised an already difficult
suspension with an unauthorized "press release." While I am sure the
board of Alcor would take this former member back (especially if this
person were in a terminal condition) I believe that Alcor might want
to consider modifications to the usual contractual agreement Alcor
makes with its members if this former member reapplies (perhaps this
should be done generally) contractually binding members from falsely
representing Alcor or other public and private acts damaging to Alcor.
The Alcor board does seem to have power over who is an Alcor member,
quoting the bylaws (adopted many years before I went on the board):
ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3. TERMINATION OF MEMBER SERVICES
The Board of Directors shall have summary power by a vote of
a majority of its members to suspend or terminate the membership
of any member, subject to limitations or warranties provided for
by contract, for conduct which in its opinion disturbs the order,
dignity, business, or harmony, or impairs the good name of the
organization, or which is likely to endanger the interest and
welfare of the organization. Such action may be initiated by any
member of the Board. The proceedings of the Board of Directors
in such matters is final and conclusive.
Note the "subject to limitations or warranties provided for by
contract" phrase.
The current version of the contract with the members (Duties of Alcor,
Article 12) states that "Alcor may cancel this Agreement at any time
with 30 days written notice to the member if the Member has not
fulfilled his/her duties as stated herein or if the Member has
willfully misrepresented information given to Alcor."
A number of Alcor members have become "former members" through
non-payment of dues or by letting suspension funding lapse. Are these
the only reasons for revoking membership? (Which has normally been
done administratively and not by the board.) Or would a court find
that the bylaws are "incorporated by reference" into the membership
contract and that the board could terminate membership for
sufficiently egregious conduct? Perhaps the lawyers on the list could
comment.
It is only in the last two years or so that the authority for
accepting new (or returning) members was shifted from the board to the
president. I am sure the new president has many of the same concerns
as I do. Whether there are any good solutions to the problem of new
or returning members damaging Alcor is unknown.
As a practical matter, kicking a member out does not result in any
reduction in their capacity to damage Alcor or Alcor members in need
of our services. (This was fully demonstrated by the member who left
and *continued* to generate problems.) It may, in fact, egg them on.
As for Mike Darwin, I personally would welcome his return. He has
been doing useful research related to cryonics (which I have been
supporting by taking care of children while my wife and Naomi travel
to Southern California to assist in his work), and if he were to
become an Alcor member again and wanted those research results applied
to *him* in a time of need, I presume he would be motivated to share
his findings.
>I am pleased to hear that this proposal was defeated by a vote among
>board members. However, according to the report, three directors of
>Alcor voted in favor of the proposal. It seems to me, if you believe
>that cryonics has a chance of working, and if you believe that Alcor
>does better cryonic suspensions than other groups (as I imagine those
>three board members do believe), to block someone from joining Alcor
>is like handing out a death sentence. I would like to hear, from the
>three "gentlemen" who voted in favor of this proposal, what gives them
>the moral right to hand out this kind of "justice" to anyone they
>happen to dislike. (I would also like to know who, precisely, the
>people were. They surely have no business being on the board of an
>organization that states its purpose is "Life Extension.")
Not speaking for the others, but "dislike" is not a consideration for
me. Our responsibility to Alcor, its members, and patients is.
>If this proposal had passed, it would have been a great violation of
>human liberty. It would have given Alcor the potential right to decide
>who lives and who dies. Even the US government doesn't give itself
>this power (it is reserved for the court system).
See the bylaw above, which (according to Steve Bridge) Mike Darwin
wrote.
>How would you feel if there were only three hospitals in the world,
>and you went to the best of them with money in your hand to pay for
>treatment that you need to save your life, and the doctors voted not
>to save you because they didn't like something you had said? I would
>like to see it written in Alcor's constitution that Alcor will NEVER
>refuse membership because someone exercises freedom of speech.
You make, incidentally, a good case for improving the other two
cryonics organizations, and for starting others. I expect both to
happen.
Alcor does not have a constitution, though Articles of Incorporation
and Bylaws amount to much the same thing. I don't believe that
"freedom of speech" is mentioned. In any case, denying someone a
suspension on the grounds of some opinion they expressed would likely
fall under protection of the US constitution.
However, I think the damage done to Alcor by one former member's
activities falls outside of the usual meaning of "free speech." They
might even be actionable. But even in that case, I would be happy to
make the former member a suspension member again if he would use our
services right away. :-) <--note, this is a "smilie face." But let me
ask: Are there *any* circumstances where Alcor should refuse
membership? I can think of real cases in which accepting some people
as members would put the entire organization at risk. Would you like
to be in the same dewar (or even the same building) as Saddam Hussein?
Should Alcor expose our patients to this level of danger?
And finally, I'm curious about Ms. Wells. How long have you
subscribed to Cryonics? Are you signed up or considering it? Do you
have other suggestions as to the kind of organizations would you like
to see doing suspensions? My phone is 408-978-7616 if you want to
discuss any of these matters.
Ken Stone <> wrote:
>HIV suspensions are only particularly difficult and hazardous *for
>people who aren't already infected with HIV*.
Having participated in two of the three HIV cases Alcor has, and
expecting to be involved in three others, I partly agree. You do have
to be careful, but the danger level is not that high.
>Given a reasonable marketing effort within the HIV+ community, I
>predict that one could find a vast amount of medical experience which
>could be invaluable to cryonics-- along with a community of motivated
>people who haven't had 60+ years to get too accustomed to the idea of
>aging and dying.
I have not looked deeply into this (the sample is too small) but near
as I can tell, HIV+ folks are not much more likely to be interested in
cryonics than the general run of the population. Recent rough
calculations indicate that--given the motivation of being terminal--
there are about three times the present number of members who would
sign up if they find themselves terminal. Given Alcor's population of
in and out of suspension HIV+ cases, about the same ratio applies
(i.e., I think most of them signed up before knowing they had HIV.)
Keith Henson,
Alcor board member, but speaking for himself
PS There is considerable pressure from two influential Alcor
"insiders" to considerably increase the suspension funding
requirements and dues. Recent interest in the Omni contest indicates
to me that a lot more members would sign up if the suspension funding
could be *reduced.* More on this later--perhaps.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1785