X-Message-Number: 1987
Date: 18 Mar 93 22:05:33 EST
From: Clarissa Wells <>
Subject: CRYONICS Funding Patients

To: >INTERNET:
 
Once again I am writing about something which I noticed in the minutes of an
Alcor board meeting. This time, I found the item in the March issue of 
Cryonics magazine. As I understand it, an Alcor member decided to commit
suicide. Consequently, his life insurance was not valid, and there was only a
$10,000 trust fund to pay for cryonic suspension, instead of the $41,000 which
is what a head-only suspension normally costs. (It doesn't say whether he was
whole-body or head-only, but I will assume it was head-only.) The Alcor people
went ahead and froze the patient even though the money was less than a quarter 
of what should have been available.
 
This seems very strange to me for two reasons. First, the same minutes of
the same board meeting state that Alcor has a "moderately serious cash
flow problem." In that case, I wonder why Alcor is taking on a patient without
sufficient payment for his suspension. After all, the shortfall here must be
at least $30,000! This means that the fund which pays for upkeep of frozen
patients has less in it than it should have. I wonder how the other frozen
patients would feel about that, if they knew what had happened?
 
Also I wonder if I am an Alcor member, and I only make arrangements to pay
$10,000, will Alcor freeze me too? Why should Alcor decide to do this kind of
favor for one patient, but not for another? And most important, doesn't this
suggest that the financial policy at Alcor is a bit loose? It seems to me,
a cryonics organization has to be very careful with its money, because if it
isn't, people won't trust it to last very long.
 
The second issue here is the whole idea of freezing someone who obviously
decided he didn't want to be frozen. I think that if I choose to kill myself,
I would want to stay dead. Now, you might say that by choosing to kill myself,
I have proved that I am irrational, and therefore other people should not
respect my judgment. But this is a dangerous argument. It puts
Alcor in the position of "knowing what's best." I don't like the sound of
this at all. I think Alcor should respect the wishes of a person, even if
those wishes happen to contradict Alcor's own ideas about the situation. 
 
One last point. I imagine there are people suffering terminal conditions who
can't get life insurance. I imagine some of these people are unable to
pay $41,000, but would be able to come up with $10,000. How will they
feel, knowing they have to die "permanently" because Alcor was willing 
to freeze someone else at a discount, but won't do the same thing for them?
If you're going to offer a "bargain rate," wouldn't it make better sense
to offer it to someone who desperately wants to live, rather than someone
who proved he wanted to die?
 
It seems to me you run into all kinds of problems if you start making special 
cases and exceptions in these life-and-death situations.
 
                              Clarissa Wells

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1987