X-Message-Number: 3145 From: Ralph Merkle <> Subject: CRYONICS: Risks Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 13:13:31 PDT There have been various previous posts about "risks" and whether they are good or bad, should or should not be taken, and who is taking what risks. The new reader to this list can be pardoned for being entirely baffled by the discussion, as it is inappropriate to discuss some pertinent information in a public forum. Some criticism of the Alcor board centers on their desire to avoid certain risks (of a nature and type which has not and I believe will not be clearly delineated publicly). In my opinion the Alcor board has acted prudently and reasonably with respect to the (publicly unspecified) risks. The reader will no doubt have noticed that the risks seem to involve (unspecified) actions of dubious legality which are supposed to be beneficial to the patient. This is viewed as advantageous by some, with the claim that the (unspecified) risk is justified by the (even more unspecified) benefits. However, there are a number of problems with taking unspecified legal risks during a suspension. If one selects an organization based on the claim that they will engage in an (unspecified) legally dubious act then it is difficult either to be sure exactly what the act might be, that it will in fact be performed, or that some different and riskier act might not be performed instead. There's nothing in the contract, after all. Public discussions of the legally dubious act are necessarilly elliptical while private conversations, shrouded in secrecy, are difficult to verify. Personally, I have quite enough difficulty determining what is meant when everyone is entirely open and public in their discussions. The issue here is not one of honesty, but simply of obtaining a clear picture when viewpoints and interpretations differ, often dramatically, from person to person. (As an aside, some examples of "risky" behavior posted to the net do not, in my opinion, present an accurate or balanced picture of the issues relevant to the decisions made by the Alcor board with respect to the unspecified risks. If you see a clear and understandable example posted to the net, you can be reasonably confident that its relevance is marginal). Even if one can manage to get a clear picture of which legally dubious act is being considered (so that one can make a rational decision about whether the risk is justified by the benefits) one still has little assurance that it will in fact be performed as specified. Again, this has little to do with honesty, but has to do with the difficulty of maintaining quality control over a procedure when feedback is secret or nonexistent and no formal training documents can be maintained. Given the inability to maintain quality control, actual performance might vary considerably. One might find that the actual course of action taken was riskier then one either anticipated or desired. The willingness to take risks is likely to vary from patient to patient depending on a host of interpersonal and other factors. Great risks might be taken for some, and little risk taken for others. And, of course, as time passes and personnel change it becomes increasingly difficult to insure that the understandings, which of course cannot be put in writing, continue to be honored. As cryonics grows and the number of people and suspensions involved increases, maintaining secrets about operational procedures becomes increasingly difficult. And, of course, "penetrating" a cryonics organization is relatively easy. An undercover agent need only volunteer to help and display a willingness to work in order to be quickly accepted. Security is expensive. It is unlikely that Alcor or any other cryonics organization will be able to afford background checks and other measures sufficient to weed out such agents. And planting microphones and other listening devices is rather trivial. As cryonics grows, it is certain to attract scrutiny. If there is a policy in place of performing unspecified acts of dubious legality, this will be discovered. Indeed, an undercover agent might find it advantageous to arrange for the acts actually performed to be riskier and more spectacularly illegal than anticipated.... We must create institutions today which can grow securely in the future and become part of the mainstream of tomorrow. Certainly we can seek to clarify gray areas in the law, and certainly we can seek to change the law. But we must act in a way which does not invite ruin when our "secrets" are made public. I think that none of the existing cryonics organizations would engage in a form of "risky behavior" that they would not describe on the net (despite some posts that might be interpreted otherwise). If any such organizations exist, let them speak now. I expect silence. I would therefore discourage anyone from selecting a cryonics organization on the supposition that it will engage in any action or procedure that it has not clearly and publicly stated it will perform. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3145