X-Message-Number: 27215
From: 
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:40:24 EDT
Subject: Standards for cryonics organizations

October 14, 2005
From Steve Bridge
former President of Alcor

I don't post too often anymore; I don't have the time.  However, this issue 
needs some background.  Self-regulation of cryonics companies is not a new 

concept.  It was discussed in the late 1980's and we even had one meeting about 
it 
in the muddle 1990's somewhere.  (Actually I meant to type "middle" there, 
but I think my subconscious meant "muddle" and it is equally appropriate.)

There were several more problems than those that Brian Wowk listed, and 

perhaps even more difficult to resolve in setting standards than the differences
in 
technology, technical philosophy, and financial set-up.

1.  In addition to CI and Alcor, we should also list Trans Time and ACS as 
still active, at least for the sake of this argument.  They still exist as 

organizations and may be active again, or other similar organizations may 
develop.  
Alcor and ACS are 501(c)3 tax-exempt charitable organizations, CI is a 

non-exempt, but still non-profit organization (but with a tax-exempt partner, 
The 
Immortalist Society), and Trans Time is for profit.  The former CryoCare 

organization was a coalition of organizations which included both non-profit and
for 
profit companies (Yes, I know, it was more complex than that; but I'm 
simplifying for the purpose of this discussion.)

For-Profits and Non-profits and Tax-exempt non-profits come under immensely 
different standards of accounting, reporting, usage of funds, organization of 
the Boards and employees, and basic business practices.  It would be very 
difficult and would require some dedicated and knowledgeable people *years* to 
understand that and write standards that would cover all three kinds.  Yes, 

hospitals of many different types have done this, but they have hacked at those

standards for a century.  And I suspect that many of the standards have to be 
set 
up as "standards for non-profit hospitals," "standards for  for-profit 
hospitals," and "standards for public hospitals."

John de Rivaz gave as an example:

>As far as financial audits are concerned, one solution may be to produce or
>acquire some accounting software that includes auditing features and
>generates appropriate reports automatically. This would be a one off
>expenditure that would also help the running of cryonics service providers.
>The only "regulation" would be that they use this particular software.

Except that... when I was at Alcor we discovered that software packages for 

profit-making companies could not be adapted for Alcor's non-profit status, and
in fact Alcor was set up for "fund accounting" -- which meant that the money 
for business expenses was accounted for in a separate internal fund from money 
for patient care, research, suspensions, etc.  These software packages could 
only be used by non-profits set up that way, and non-profits set up in other 

ways were required to use different kinds of software.  Perhaps someone has now
developed a one-size-fits-all accounting package; but I doubt it.  And any 
such package might cost upwards of $30,000.  We were VERY surprised at the 
expense of good non-profit corporate accounting software.

2.  Alcor uses the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act as the legal basis for its 

entire operation, especially for its legal right to accept patients.  CI uses an
entirely different legal mechanism.  Both may turn out to be perfectly 

workable but are so different in many details as to make similar regulation of 
both 
impossible.

3.  Now hospitals perhaps do much better on creating consistent medical 

standards (although I'm sure that Steve Harris or some other physician on this 
list 
can tell us that this process is not even remotely "easy".   The technical 
issues are big sticking points between cryonics organizations, of course, but 
those exist in medicine, too.  The difference in medicine is that **you can 

prove which one is the best.**  "Best" can only mean "best survival and health 
of 
the patient at the most reasonable cost."

Cryonicists cannot negotiate which technique is "best," because all of 

Alcor's patients and all of CI's patients, and all of Trans Time's patients are

STILL IN CRYOPRESERVATION.  We know NOTHING about their "survival and health."

All of us may be doing more than is necessary to assure survival and health.  Or
too little.  Or entirely the wrong thing.  We can make guesses based on cell 
survival and other small tests, but we cannot know.  

4.  If you only have three or four different companies in a field and each 
company is organized in entirely different corporate and tax structures, with 
different basic philosophies, and different technologies, and with no way to 
*prove* which ones work best, then what is the basis for writing some kind of 
detailed joint standards?

The reason this wasn't done 10 years ago was not anything as simple as "only 
my company matters" or "I don't like those people, so I won't talk to them."  
We were willing to talk.  But the problem was so complicated, it looked to our 
small groups -- with leaders already up to their eyeballs in basic survival 

tasks -- like a job equal to 20 people forming a club to put a man on the moon.
 We couldn't even agree on where to begin.  So we went out and did what we 
could for our individual organizations.

That said, I do understand that the current impetus for this call for 

self-regulation is the bizarre behavior and apparently fraudulent offers of Jon

Despres.  Despres seems to be trying to persuade people to let him freeze (I 
will 

not use the term "preservation" for this) their deceased relatives, even though
he has no dewar, no dry ice, no nitrogen, no equipment, no finances, no 

building, no team, no corporation, no legal paperwork, and no useful knowledge 
of 
any kind except how to make a web page and how to post messages on mailing 
lists and chat groups.

So maybe there IS some basic standard we can all agree on that says we will 
not offer human cryopreservation of any kind unless we have those things at 
minimum!

Steve Bridge


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27215