X-Message-Number: 22009
From: "David Pizer" <>
Subject: Observers at Suspensions  -  good or bad?
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:47:52 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C334BD.E78AC340
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"


Observers at a suspension could be a good thing or a very bad thing.  For 
instance if there were observers who were hostile, it would be likely that a bad
report would be given.  A friendly observer might overlook important mistakes.
So it seems to me that whether observers would be a good or bad thing would 
solely depend on who was the observer!  So if this discussion of observers is to
be something useful the following should be addressed:


1.    Assuming proper observers could be recruited and certain guidelines 
followed, would Alcor and CI want their suspensions observed?   What would be 
gained from this?  If it turned out to be  just a public relations ploy for one 
to say they were better than the others, I would not want observers at 
suspensions.  However, if proper guidelines were followed, the members of both 
organizations might feel more confident in their own organization's ability to 
follow it's recommended procedures.  So member confidence might be a reason to 
have observers. 


Also, observers who became experienced might be able to provide certain feedback
that could help improve suspensions.

Both CI and Alcor might learn from each others suspensions.


On the negative side, some suspensions are very tedious, especially when hostile
relatives are involved.   In these cases, (in my opinion) the less people 
involved at the patient's house or hospice under tense relative-involved 
situations, the better.


Some patients don't want their suspension observed.  Of course both 
organizations respect those wishes.


2.    Who would the observers be?   They would have to be at least one person 
from each organization who is highly respected by the other organization but 
probably not in management.  They would have to be knowledgeable about 
suspensions.


What might work is that one observer from CI and one from Alcor attend the 
suspension and then write a joint report that they both agree on.  If they can't
agree fully on the final report, then none is issued.


3.    There would have to be strict guidelines that were objective about what 
was to be observed and what was to be reported on.


Would there be one report for the organizations involved and another for the 
cryonics public?



Even if the above conditions could be met, I still have doubts if this type of 
suspension observation would be a good thing or not.  At present each 
organization observes it's own behavior at suspensions.  Both organizations want
to improve what they can, it's not like we are working for a company we don't 
like and we are lazy.  Persons from both organizations want their own 
organization to learn as much as possible from each suspension mainly because we
"observers" and members,  are also future patients and we want the best damn 
suspension for ourselves as possible at the time.


I don't have an answer whether observers at suspensions would be a good thing or
a bad thing, but I know that if the rules are not well-defined ahead, and only 
objective reasonable observers are used, it can only be a bad things.


On the other hand, good observation and reporting might work to bring both 
organizations closer together?


David

------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C334BD.E78AC340

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22009