X-Message-Number: 27006
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: well intentioned initiatives
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:59:58 +0200

On 11 Sep 2005, at 02:34, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I'm no lawyer.  Nevertheless, my approach to the legal
> challenges would follow two lines of reasoning:  (1)
> the right to life.  Stated in the constitution, in the
> Bill of Rights, 5th Amendment: "No person shall be...
> deprived of life, ...without due process of law."
> This is the basis of the right of self-defense and the
> right to essential medical care.  Thus the case can be
> made that access to cryonics, as a lifesaving medical
> procedure, has bedrock constitutional protection.

Since forty million American are deprived of regular medical care due  
to having no health insurance, this argument doesn't have much chance  
of going anywhere.


> (2) Concurrently, I would wed the protections of the
> First and 14th Amendments. The First Amendment
> guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting
> an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
> exercise thereof...".  Since both medical and funerary
> practices have been and remain strongly influenced by
> religious beliefs, and since one can make the case
> that the "belief" in cryonics (I personally prefer the
> term "confidence", but in this context "belief" works
> better) is the rationalist equivalent of "religious
> faith", one can then assert that the equal protection
> clause of the 14th Amendment protects cryonicists'
> rights -- as it does similar rights of the devoutly
> religious -- to specify personal medical care and
> "funerary" practices.

I don't see how a non-church organization would get standing to do this.


dss


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27006