X-Message-Number: 3109 Date: 11 Sep 94 05:03:08 EDT From: Saul Kent <> Subject: CRYONICS: My Confidential Memo In March, 1993, I sent a confidential memo to Alcor's Board of Directors urging them to discuss the possibility of a contract between Alcor and BioPreservation, Inc. (BPI), which would enable Alcor to offer BPI's cryonic suspension services to Alcor members as an alternative to the Alcor suspension team. On Oct. 30, 1993, Carlos Mondragon posted a portion of that confidential memo on CryoNet without asking my permission to do so. Yesterday, Dave Consenza re-posted Carlos' posting on CryoNet, again without asking my permission to do so. I believe both Carlos' and Dave's postings were inappropriate, but will now respond to both of them. The underlying purpose of my memo to the Alcor Board of March, 1993, in which I attempted to persuade them to consider the possibility of offering BPI's services to Alcor members, was to attempt to prevent a split in Alcor. I and a good number of other members of Alcor felt very strongly that BPI, headed by Mike Darwin and Dr. Steve Harris, offered the best available cryonic suspension services. I felt that BPI had far better technical expertise, better ability to respond to emergencies, and far better ability to interface with family and medical professionals during a suspension than the leaders of the Alcor team. I also felt that offering the services of *two* suspension teams would give Alcor the kind of back-up, technically and logistically, that would significantly strengthen the organization. In my memo to the Alcor Board, I specifically stated that I was going to discuss the major issue "RAISED BY ALCOR BOARD MEMBERS" for their reluctance to offer Mike's services..."Mike's inclination to take risks during suspensions that could lead to legal problems for Alcor." I then stated that I agreed with the board that having Mike involved in future Alcor suspensions would subject the organization to "a greater degree of risk with regard to such actions than Alcor would likely face with anyone (then) on Alcor's suspension team." That was my feeling then. It remains my feeling today. What I also felt at the time was that the superiority of Mike's technical abilities, knowledge, and experience far outweighed the risk of Mike's inclination to take chances that might lead to legal problems for Alcor. What I also felt was that, in most instances, I am in *favor* of the risks Mike is inclined to take during suspensions because, in my opinion, Mike's tendency to take risks are always on behalf of the patient and, I believe, generally improve the chances of the patient getting the best possible suspension. Moreover, I want to point out that having someone with the experience and medical knowledge of Mike Darwin--along with a medical doctor (Steve Harris) willing to go out in the field--makes it easier, in my opinion, for the BPI team to assess risks to the patient AND to the organization than having team leaders who do NOT have this kind of expertise and experience. At the time I wrote my memo, I and others in Alcor who wanted the option of BPI's services, and who were aware of Mike's inclincation to take risks on behalf of patients, felt that the benefits of having Mike involved in suspensions far outweighed the potential risks to Alcor. A majority of the Alcor board, however, had taken a contrary position. They felt that the possibility of Mike taking risks on behalf of patients causing legal problems for Alcor outweighed the benefits of Mike's (and Steve Harris') greater knowledge and experience. My memo was aimed specifically at THESE members of the Board. The suggestions I made to "protect" Alcor against the risk of Mike taking "inappropriate actions" during a suspension were made because I believed that anything short of proposing such measures had no chance of persuading the board to discuss the possibility of offering BPI's service to Alcor members, not because I necessarily believed in taking such measures myself. I felt that, if I could persuade the Alcor board that such measures might protect Alcor against the risks THEY were concerned about, it might be a starting point for a discussion about the possiblity of Alcor offering BPI's services. I was also convinced that if Alcor did NOT offer BPI's services, a good number of Alcor's most active members would switch to an organization that DID offer BPI's services. I was wrong about my memo leading to meaningful talks about offering Alcor members BPI's services, but was right that the failure of Alcor to offer BPI's services would lead to a schism in Alcor. The result of this schism was the formation of CryoCare and several other new cryonics organizations. It is now about a year since the schism occurred. I am now a member of CryoCare and my cryonics coverage is now with BPI rather than with Alcor. I now feel even stronger than before about the desirabil- ity of being covered by BPI rather than by Alcor for the following reasons: 1) The BPI team has now performed several cryonic suspensions with excellent results; 2) The BPI team has added additional medical professionals to its team; 3) The BPI team now has access to new and better equipment than it did before; 4) The key members of the BPI team have had extensive training in cryonic suspension procedures through their participation in a series of hypothermia experiments for 21st Century Medicine; 5) BPI has conducted important brain cryopreservation research that has yielded new knowledge about cryonic suspension; 6) BPI now has the facilities and the equipment (and is fast acquiring the staff) to be able to do more than one suspension at the same time; 7) The remarkable successes by key BPI personnel in performing hypothermia experiments has strengthened my opinion that BPI's team can perform superior cryonic suspensions. If the many positives of having BPI's team handle suspensions have *increased* significantly, in my opinion, the one negative has *decreased* significantly. CryoCare has taken legal and financial steps to lessen the risk of any action taken by BPI (or any other service provider) on patients already in cryonic suspension or on the funds provided for their long-term care. Anyone who wishes to discuss my opinions on these issues with me should contact me directly by E-mail. Saul Kent Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3109