X-Message-Number: 29272 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:00:19 -0800 (PST) From: 2Arcturus <> Subject: reanimation --0-62392987-1173294019=:40105 Well, they wouldn't appoint a lifelong guardian as in the case of retarded people -- I meant a guardian ad litem, to make specific decisions about a one-time resuscitation. If the patient's reanimation trust specifically empowers the trustees to make decisions about resuscitation, then perhaps the courts might appoint/recognize the trustees as your guardians in this matter. One worries that the trustees have an interest in not spending the trust money, and that the cryonics patient is a stranger to them. Would the general public fund a "reanimation" if there was no trust money and if the cryonics organization couldn't afford to? Again, it depends on the society's opinions, as channeled through the courts. One could easily imagine the swirl of public opinion and "expert" ethicists - reanimation as unjustified human experimentation? a religious sin against God? a violation of the Hippocratic oath - do no harm? a waste of scarce resources? an injustice to the reanimated patient, who will be disoriented and alone in the society? etc. etc. A cryonics organization might be worried about being sued by the patient or the patient's surviving family or the patient's guardian if the "reanimation" was not perfectly successful or not exactly what the patient wanted (even if the patient changed his/her mind after-the-fact). If the surviving family or trustees or even the government made the decision, this might let the cryonics org off the hook. I guess a practical upshot might be that you should make your wishes about reanimation known in permanent documents to as many people as possible - your family, your trustees, your cryonics org. It also might be helpful for cryonicists to try to "guide" public opinion, to try to lay the groundwork for shaping future public policy when the issue finally blows into the political/legal arena. Just my two-cents. Not a lawyer, politician, or ethicist. >>>>Knowing how much the legal profession charges for such work at present, (eg with mentally impaired people) they are not going to be interested in doing this unless the reanimated person comes with a large reanimation trust they (ie bankers, lawyers, courts of protection and tax authorities) can plunder for payment. If you don't have faith in the profession to do the right thing, then maybe this is an argument not to try and send wealth to the future. Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. --0-62392987-1173294019=:40105 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29272