X-Message-Number: 29328
From: "marta sandberg" <>
Subject: The ethics of last-minute cases
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:46:55 +0800

This is a reply to an old posting, but you can look it up if you can't 
remember the thread.

I have a very serious problem with Chares Platt's.  To deny a patient the 
right to be frozen if a hostile relative exist will bar at least 
three-quarters of the current cases and mean that any relative of mine who 
don't like cryonics will have veto power over my choice.

I know there are problems with hostile relatives, but that is not the 
answer.

Marta

>
>Message #29288
>Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:27:03 -0500 (EST)
>From: Charles Platt <>
>Subject: The ethics of last-minute cases
>References: <>
>
>Keith Henson raises the very worthwhile topic of last minute
>cases. No organization has ever set out specifically to find
>and encourage such cases. It is interesting to consider the
>consequences of embarking on such a policy.
>
>My own personal guidelines have been:
>
>--Do not accept a case without guaranteed funding in place.
>--Do not accept a case where informed consent is unavailable.
>--Do not accept a case where hostile relatives may exist.
>--Be cautious of any case where those involved may have
>unclear or unrealistic ideas about cryonics.

_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement: 10 Students. 1 Winner. You Decide 


http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fletsshop%2Ecom%2FCompetitions%2FLetsNetwork%2Ftabid%2F550%2FDefault%2Easpx&_t=754951090&_r=letsshop&_m=EXT

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29328