X-Message-Number: 21924 Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:24:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: regulation Cryonics survives because it is not regulated as a medical procedure. Any cryonicist who supports the idea of a centralized government that can impose numerous regulations is, in my opinion, a hypocrite, because (s)he is basically saying, "It's okay to regulate those OTHER people, but please don't regulate ME." Libertarians believe a) personal liberty should be maximized (provided it is not derived at the expense of someone else's liberty) and b) each individual has a right to keep what he has acquired legitimately. Cryonicists believe they should have the liberty to cryopreserve their remains. They do not agree with regulations that interfere with this desire. Can they explain to me why cryo-regulations are "bad" while other regulations are "good"? Isn't this just a typical example of self-interest trumping espoused political ideology? Where ownership is concerned, it is illegal in the United States to own an anatomical donation, because if you could own it, you could sell it, and we would have a "transplant market" which is considered ethically unacceptable, probably because of ideas rooted in the sacredness of human life--ie religious delusions. This is why you can't auction a spare kidney on eBay, and of course it explains the shortage of transplantable organs: When you can't own something, you are liable to find shortages and rationing. It would be very much in the interests of cryonicists if their cryonics organization (or an intermediary patient-care organization established by the cryonicist prior to death) were allowed to own the cryopatient. This would greatly strengthen the ability to defend the cryopatient against hostile outsiders, such as Godfearing relatives. The way things are, any judge can decide that someone else should take possession, and the organization may be forced to surrender the cryopatient. In other words, the State can grab your remains. THIS HAS HAPPENED. And you still don't think the right to private ownership is a good idea? Anyone who has signed up for cryonics has in effect adopted some libertarian principles, and is taking advantage of those principles. To recommend something totally different for everyone else is, as I said at the beginning, hypocritical. --Charles Platt Speaking for himself, etc etc PS. This whole thread was started by one disabled person who was outraged by some libertarian concepts and condemned them even though he did not entirely understand the concepts--and had received donations from libertarians (among others) who supported his desire to be cryopreserved. This was a classic example demonstrating that libertarians, far from being mean and greedy, can be extremely generous; and private charity can achieve much more than the governmentally controlled redistribution of wealth. When cryonics procedures are provided "free" under a brave new system of socialized medicine, *then* come back and tell me that libertarianism is a bad idea. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21924