X-Message-Number: 1843
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 15:10:02 CST
From: Brian Wowk <>
Subject: CRYONICS Member Exclusion

Steve Jackson:
 
> Ms. Wells says, in an earnest and fuzzy post, that if Alcor drops members
> because of anything they say or do, Alcor is no different from a cult,
> and the First Amendment rights of its members are threatened. To my
> surprise, Mike Darwin and Brian Wowk - whose comments usually seem well-
> thought-out - immediately agree. 
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Emotionally loaded terms like "cults" and
> "Constitutional rights" are being thrown around here, inaccurately and in
> a way that creates heat rather than light. 
 
        Nowhere in my postings did I make any reference to the "First 
Amendment", nor did I make any other "freedom of speech" invocations in 
the context of the membership exclusion issue.  I am well aware of the 
philosophical foundations of these concepts, and I would never suggest 
a person should be exempt from reaction by others to what they say.
 
        I did not intend to say that excluding members on the basis of 
their opinions would make Alcor a cult by definition, but rather that 
this behavior was characteristic of cults.  (Although I cannot offhand 
think of any organizations that actually does this that aren't 
religions or cults.)  You are right, though, that "cult" is an 
emotionally loaded term, and I shall henceforth refrain from using it.
 
> BUT . . .  the directors MUST have the authority to evict a loon or
> loose cannon who somehow demonstrates that he is an actual danger to
> Alcor's work, Alcor's patients, or Alcor's image. Arguing otherwise
> has to proceed from either a lack of data or a special agenda,
> because it sure doesn't proceed from the facts.
 
        Someone has yet to tell me how paying dues and getting a 
magazine could ever present a "danger" to Alcor.  More to the point, I 
have yet to hear how stopping dues revenue and cancelling a magazine 
could ever stop an individual's destructive behavior toward Alcor.  The 
only way to stop destructive behavior (by members OR non-members) is 
ostracism and legal action.  Except for the truly extraordinary 
examples recently given by Steve Bridge, A SUSPENSION SERVICE AGREEMENT 
HAS *NO EFFECT* ON THE ABILITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO DAMAGE ALCOR.   
 
        Because membership status cannot affect Alcor's vulnerability 
to an individual, the only effect of cancelling membership is the 
statement: "Because you are an S.O.B., we are going to let you die."  
While I believe all individuals and organizations have an inalienable 
right to make this decision (and indeed I would do this myself to many 
people in many cases), I believe that this is a *very bad* policy for 
Alcor to adopt.  In addition to having no objective benefit for Alcor's 
safety, it also violates long-held traditions of medicine.  In the long 
run, I believe it would be bad for our image if nothing else.
 
        I believe Alcor's bylaws should have liberal provision for the 
exclusion of members from all sorts of privileges if having those 
privileges is deemed hazardous to Alcor or its patients.  The one 
privilege that should not be removed except under the most 
extraordinary of circumstances is the privilege of getting a suspension 
if you need it.
 
                                                --- Brian Wowk 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1843