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