X-Message-Number: 22459
From: "Robin Helweg-Larsen" <>
Subject: CI and Michigan
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 09:24:43 -0400

I agree with the two Davids, and would even go a little further:  perhaps
rather than thinking of this as like the Dora Kent attack on Alcor, this
might be an opportunity for CI to positively influence the development of
the inevitable government regulation of the cryonics industry, and to help
make sure that the kinds of procedures that we would all like to see
guaranteed by a cryonics provider are mandated.

Perhaps the first cremations, and the first crematoria, ran into the same
situation of suddenly being noticed by government agencies and being asked
to comply with existing laws.  I'm sure there was discussion, mutual
education, and modifications.

But at the same time, the situation does highlight the need for us to
develop our international networks, so that in the event of actual
hostilities we have an immediate option of moving jurisdictions.

Robin HL

>Message #22430
>From: "David Verbeke" <>
>Subject: Reflections on CI's problems
>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:51:45 +0000
>As my personal contacts learn me, this is not an attack of the CIS against
>the cryonics movement.  All they are asking is that the CI would operate
>within the law of the state of Michigan and show some openness.

>Message #22454
>From: "David Pizer" <>
>Subject: Uniform Anatomical Gift Act
>Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 05:46:59 -0700

>There has been some discussion on this forum about whether CI will
>have to choose between UAGA and meeting funeral safety requirements.
>I think they can do both at the same time.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22459