X-Message-Number: 29
From: Kevin Q. Brown
Subject: CSNY notes and legal status of cryonics
Date: 17 Oct 1988

Here are some notes from the Sat. Oct. 15 meeting of the Cryonics Society of
New York (ALCOR Discussion Group).
                                       - Kevin Q. Brown
                                       ...{att|clyde|cuae2}!ho4cad!kqb

-----

ALCOR recently did another cryonic suspension, this time for a person in
Indiana.  (More details will be forthcoming later.)

Reminder: The next Life Against Death Conference will be on Sun. Oct. 30 at
the Holiday Inn near LaGuardia airport, NYC.  (Call the Life Extension
Foundation at 1-800-841-LIFE or see message #19 for details.)

The next CSNY meeting will be at 7:00 PM Sat. Nov. 19 at the El Paso
restaurant (212) 673-0828 at 134 W. Houston between MacDougal and Sullivan.

Legal Status of Cryonics
------------------------
Cryonics has always operated in a grey area of the law.  It has not been
illegal, but since cryonics has not fit into any of the categories covered by
the established regulations, its status and legal requirements have often been
uncertain.  (In particular, cryonics redefines death, and that can remarkably
change a person's legal status.)  Now we have two legal precedents, in favor
of cryonics, that give it a more firm legal standing.
In the Dora Kent case, the judge ruled this past February that the Riverside
County coroner did NOT have the right to autopsy Dora Kent (or any of the other
people in cryonic suspension under the care of ALCOR) because there was a
chance that she (and they) may someday be reanimated and an autopsy would
destroy that chance.
Just a few days ago a California man suffering from AIDS won another case in
favor of cryonics.  The judge granted a temporary restraining order that:
  (1) allows him to be cryonically suspended (by ALCOR) immediately after he
      is declared dead by a doctor, and
  (2) allows the doctor to use the minimum death criterion (heart stopped,
      not brain death).
The judge chastised the hospital for not wanting to cooperate with the man's
wishes and said that the hospital must act in the patient's best interest,
which in this case is to minimize the amount of brain damage before cryonic

suspension.  Furthermore, the California health department, which had previously

followed a policy of NOT issuing VS-9 forms (which are needed for legal disposal

of a body) to any cryonics organizations, has, in advance, said that it will not
contest the VS-9 form in this man's case.  (Presumably the health department
does not want to get caught in the lawsuit that would arise if they did refuse
to issue the VS-9.)
Of course, the logic in this latest decision involves some double-think;
in effect, the ruling is that the doctor may quickly declare a man (legally)
dead so ALCOR can keep him alive (in cryonic suspension).  Someday this must be
rectified, but for now it is substantial progress.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29