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