X-Message-Number: 1828
From: Graham Wilson <>
Subject: CRYONICS
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 15:32:26 WET

> 
> Message: #1819 - Cryonics law
> Date: 24 Feb 93 18:31:01 EST
> From: Garret Smyth <>
> Message-Subject: CRYONICS Cryonics law

Garret Smyth Says :
> 
> If I were draughting a law about cryonics I think I would have taken a
> different approach to Graham Wilson. I think that a lot of the problems
> that arise for patients is that they have few or no rights at all,
> because the law regards them as dead. Hence families have more rights
> than they do, and contract law doesn't apply. I would remedy this by
> creat a third legal state between life and death which would allow
> patients to have some, if not all, of the rights of the living. This
> could be used to apply to "living" but non-compus mentus patients as
> well as cryonics patients.
> 

Graham Wilson says :

**I considered the approach which Garret proposes. However, I 
rejected this approach very quickly. There were several reasons.

Primarily you are unlikely to get any bill accepted that gives dead people
the legal appearance of life. Such a bill would also require considerable
vast and complex changes to practically every single piece of property,
trusts and family legislation passed over the last 200 years. Changes such
as these, within our current framework of law would be too complex to
implement. I would estimate that such an act would need to be 4 - 5000
sections in length as a minimum.

Similarly, if you expect the law to treat cryonics patients for all intense
and purposes as alive, then the law will probably require that person to 
carry the same liabilites and responsibilities that the current living
do. Cryonicists would be very unhappy with this.


> One aspect of the Cryonics Bill that disturbed me more than a little was
> that I would not have fulfilled the necessary requirements to be deemed
> to be signed up! Despite having been signed up with Alcor since 1986, and
> having been in almost every national newspaper, on countless TV and Radio
> programmes (UK and elsewhere - even Australia) stating that I want to be
> suspended (I've had complete strangers come up to me and say something
> like "You're the bloke having his head frozen!"), and generally making my
> intent as widely known as possible, Graham's proposed law could actually
> be used to *prevent* my suspension!
> 
** I would be grateful if you could clarify this point a little further.
   The object of the strict rules for cryonic electives-drawn up in line
   with Wills provisions- was to provide both the patient, relatives and
   the state with protection. The Wills provisions serve the testator well.
   Therefore, a similar provison would probably serve the cryonic patient.


> Incidentally, my understanding of the Anatomy Act (Eighteen thiry
> something, I think) is that if the intent of the deceased is plain, then
> it must be followed.

** I looked at this issue very carefully. The views of the patient would
   not be followed under English law. However, the opposite view
   would be true under American law. 

   In terms of the Anatomical acts, the dead have no voice, nor it could
   be argued would any applicant before a court have locus standi (legal
   standing) to bring such an action where cryonic medicine is concerned.
   The person in legal charge of the body, until it is claimed is the 
   hospital. There are set rules as to who can claim a body from the 
   hospital. A relative would have an automatic claim over the body
   regardless of the wishes, however expressed of the patient. Similarly,
   only the relatives in a successive order have control over the body
   until it is interred.

   If a relative wishes to prevent the patient from being suspended there
   is nothing, it would seem, under English law that a cryonics company 
   could do to override this view.

   If medical staff perform a hospital autopsy AFTER the body has been 
   claimed or it is apparent that it will be claimed then the relatives
   have an action for nervous shock. However, no other cause of action 
   will be open to them. Similarly, no other person or organisation,
   such as a cryonics company would be able to bring an action. 

   The only way to override the acts would be for the patient to become
   the subject of the trust. However, there is no property in a dead
   body and therefore such a trust cannot exist.

> 
> 
> Something I must say in favour of Graham's oeuvre is that it is rather
> more positively disposed towards cryonics than the one piece of
> legisaltion anywhere in the world that specifically mentions cryonics. In
> Canada (British Columbia, I think) cryonics has been banned outright!
> 

** I believe that if cryonics is going to work it needs to have statutory
   authority. If cryocists leave the judiciary to develop a series of 
   hap-hazard rules Alcor and other cryonics companies are going to 
   end up spending more and more time fighting complex and very expensive
   court cases. 

   However, at the same time, if cryonics is to be provided with a 
   statutory footing you cannot expect cryonic firms to be given a free
   hand in this. In the interests of both society, government and morality
   there needs to be some control - I would argue that the only independent
   body capable of achieving this would be something like the Cryonics
   Regulatory Authority, as outlined in the proposed act.

-- 
         *********************************************************
         *      Graham Wilson      *    *
         *     LL.B.  Law  III     *     Coventry  University    *
         *********************************************************

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1828