X-Message-Number: 3104
From:
Subject: CRYONICS Re: Miscellaneous answers
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 12:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
:
>
> David Cosenza writes:
>
> > Personally, I'd prefer to have my brain subjected to "mažana-style"
> > cryonics in Arizona as you refer to it, as opposed to a "Kervorkian-style"
> > suspension in Rancho Cucamonga!! If you want to apply a greater degree of
> > risk to your suspension that's your business, but I think those who count
> > on their organization to get them through to the future would be
> > well-advised to do otherwise.
>
> David, please could you explain the meaning of "Kervorkian-
> style"? As I'm sure you are aware, no patient has died in (or
> near) the operating room at Rancho Cucamonga. The
> implications of your statement seem untrue, grossly
> misleading, and libelous to me.
>
> Could you also define what you mean by "a greater degree of
> risk"? Are you referring to earthquake risk affecting patient
> storage, or what? Clarification would be helpful,
> assuming you are able to supply it.
>
Certainly. My remarks were in line with a memorandum sent to Alcor's board
last year by one of Mike's supporters (Saul Kent), and which Carlos Mondrag›n
also posted to the politics thread months ago. Notably, Carlos' post was in
reply to something Charles had posted, and since then neither Platt, Kent or
Darwin have chosen to answer. Carlos refuses to discuss the issue further,
but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what it's about. Here's
the memo:
Message: #0014.356 - Caveat
From:
Subject: CRYONICS.POLITICS Caveat
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 20:26:45 PDT
From: Carlos Mondragon
To: CryoNet Politics
In his posting regarding the recent (October 2) closed meeting,
Charles Platt again insists that problems between Alcor and Mike Darwin
are soley the result of personal animosities on the part of Alcor
directors, and that Alcor's concerns are trivial. It is my understanding
that Charles is now working with Mike, Saul Kent, and others on the
formation of new cryonics organizations. For the sake of argument, if one
were to completely discount everything said by Alcor management on this
subject, then I suggest one might be interested in what *Saul Kent* has
said.
In March of this year Saul Kent sent a memo to Alcor's board urging
it to enter into an agreement with Bioprservation for the provision of
standby, total body washout, and perfusion services. The memo was seven
pages long, most of it praising Mike Darwin's technical experience and
expertise. There were however certain passages, reproduced below, which
give rise to many questions:
Mr. Kent wrote:
Does Mike's Inclination To Take Risks Rule Him Out
As A Provider Of Cryonic Suspension Services?
Before commenting further on the reasons I think Alcor should offer
Mike's suspension services to its members, I'd like to discuss the major
issue raised by Alcor Board members for their reluctance to offer his
services: Mike's inclination to take risks during suspensions that could
lead to legal problems for Alcor. As all of you know, there have been
incidents during two Alcor suspensions in recent years in which Mike
either took (or was alleged to have taken) certain actions that members of
the board all agree should *not* have been taken. Alcor board members
have expressed their concern about the potential risk to Alcor of Mike
possibly taking similar actions during future suspensions if he was to
provide suspension services through Alcor.
Before proceeding with my views on this issue, I want to point out
first that I am well informed about Mike's actions (and alledged actions)
during these two suspensions, and second that I agree with the board that
having Mike involved in future Alcor suspensions will subject the
organization to a greater degree of risk with regard to such actions than
Alcor would likely face with anyone on Alcor's suspension team.
Protecting Alcor Against Risk Of Mike Taking Inappropriate Action
During A Suspension
I also think we can take several concrete steps to *lower* the risk
of Mike taking inappropriate action during an Alcor suspension. They are
as follows:
1. There should be a precise understanding between Alcor management
and Mike Darwin regarding actions that he (and the memebers of his team)
are prohibited from taking during a suspension. This understanding should
be spelled out as explicitly as possible in the contract between Mike and
2. Final authority regarding what major decisions to take during a
suspension in the best interests of the patient (other than technical
questions regarding his or her suspension) should be the sole
responsibility of Alcor.
3. The actions of Mike (and his team) should be monitored
continuously by a high-level Alcor staff or board member with the
authority to intervene if it becomes necessary to prevent Mike from taking
any type of inappropriate action during a suspension.
4. In the contract between Mike (*Biopreservation, Inc*.) and Alcor,
Mike should include a disclaimer to hold Alcor harmless for any
inappropriate actions taken by Mike and any member of his team during a
suspension.
My assessment of the value (and potential benefits to Alcor) of Mike
Darwin's extraordinary experience, knowledge, and communication ability
should *not* be considered as criticism in any way of Tanya Jones in her
role as leader of Alcor's suspension team. Tanya deserves a great deal of
credit for assuming responsibility in a critical area when no one else was
willing to do so. She also deserves credit for her ongoing efforts to
prepare for future suspensions and for the resourcefulness and resiliency
she's demonstarted in the suspensions in which she's participated. My
efforts in trying to pursuade the board to consider offering Mike's
suspension services are motivated solely by my desire to see Alcor improve
and grow stronger, and are not meant to disparage the efforts of Tanya or
any other Alcor staff member.
In any case, it is my opinion that the potential benefits of Mike's
participation in the suspension of those Alcor members who choose to use
his services outweigh the potential risks to Alcor of his participation in
those suspensions.
I also want to point out that--while I believe that Mike Darwin (and
his suspension team) currently have advantages in experience, knowledge,
and technical capability over Alcor's team--I do not necessarily believe
that Mike's team will be able to maintain these advantages. I think
Alcor's suspension team will improve steadily as it gains experience,
knowledge, and additional personnel. I also think Mike is likely to make
his most valuable long-term contributions to cryonics through research,
and that he is likely to spend less and less time on suspensions and his
research progresses, and as others on his suspension team gain the
experience necessary to be able to replace him as team leader.
[End of Saul Kent quotation]
Obvious questions which come to mind are:
1. Does Saul Kent now believe that the risks associated with Mr. Darwin
are non-existent? If so, Why?
2. Why did Mr. Kent propose such rigid "risk reduction" constraints?
his team should be "monitored continuously by a high level Alcor staff or
board member with the authority to intervene". Why did Mr. Kent believe
this last March? If he no longer thinks this is true, what changed his
mind? If Mr. Kent still believes that Mr. Darwin should be monitored, who
will be entrusted to do so, and how much responsibility and authority will
that person(s) have?
Mr. Kent has financial interests in companies other than
Biopreservation, with which Mr. Darwin is associated (21st Century
Medicine and Cryovita Laboratories). Dr. Steven Harris is a principal in
Biopreservation. How do Mr. Kent and Dr. Harris now plan to cope with the
risks which Mr. Kent refers to? Do Mr. Kent and Dr. Harris plan to
underwrite the risks associated with Mr. Darwin, *and if so how?*
Mr. Kent campaigned vigorously to put pressure on Alcor's board of
directors in the hope of getting an Alcor/Biopreservation contract. How
has he presented the "risk factors" to members he has solicited? If Mr.
Kent and Dr. Harris now believe that the risks are trivial, what
guarantees do they offer to prospective Biopreservation clients?
Alcor's directors believe that their first responsibility is the
safety of the patients in their care and members in need of suspension.
In Mr. Kent's opinion, Biopreservation will offer a technically superior
suspension. How do Mr. Kent and Dr. Harris think that such a suspension
will benefit a patient who could be subjected to risks of *permanent
death* days, months, or *years* after the fact?
CAVEAT EMPTOR!!!
-CM
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Cosenza
PGP 2.3a Public Key available by finger _or_ ftp.netcom.com:/pub/dcosenza
PGP 2.3a Key fingerprint = BF 6C AA 44 C6 CA 13 3F 4A EC 0A 90 AE F3 74 6D
"When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption."
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3104