X-Message-Number: 31743 From: "John de Rivaz" <> Subject: Coroners and Justice Bill now before the House of Lords Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:25:13 +0100 Regular readers may recall that I posted details of the Coroners and Justice Bill when it was first brought to my attention. As suggested for others, I wrote to my MP asking that he support the bill. He obtained a letter, which is attached below, on my behalf. Whilst not ideal for cryonics patients, it goes a long way towards that from the previous legal situation, and we must be thankful for that. Obviously cryonics people know that dissecting a cryonics patient who may have been the victim of violent crime is no different to dissecting a patient who has had a heart attack whilst a victim of crime and could otherwise be retrieved by urgent restorative surgery. However for the rest of the world to think of it this way there needs to be evidence based cryonics. This is, of course, impossible to achieve until such a time as cryonics is no longer needed for new patients. (Restoring cryopreservation damage is such an enormous task that any civilisation capable of doing it is going to be able to restore virtually all other damage.) Others believe that restoring a smaller life form from cryopreservation would provide sufficient evidence, but embryos are already cryopreserved and restored as a routine matter. Maybe something as big as a pig would be better, but that is still a long way off. Even then people could argue that its program and data (soul) may have been lost. However if coroners can be made aware that demanding the dissection of a cryonics patient is likely to give them a lot of work and trouble, they may be discouraged from doing so. If there are any comments or questions readers would like to make, I have been offered the chance to write again [16 June 2009]. But ideally writing to your own MP would be best. British citizens can find the name and contact details of their local MPs here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/DoItOnline/DG_4018047 In the letter that follows, <Post Mortem **examination**> is an ellipsis for <Post Mortem **dissection**>. "Examination" implies looking, not cutting. >>>> Thank you for your letter of 13 May on behalf of your constituent Mr John de Rivaz who supports the possibility of post mortems being carried out by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan rather than by traditional invasive methods. I am pleased to confirm that clause 16 (2) of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which recently concluded its passage through the House of Commons and is now before the House of Lords, provides for coroners to specify the kind of examination to be made when requesting a postmortem examination. This can include examination by way of an MRI scan. This is a very important proposal that will contribute to our aim of making the coroner service more responsive to the needs of bereaved families and to faith groups. The loss of a loved one is extremely difficult for a family to deal with and the thought of an invasive post-mortem can compound the grief and distress. We therefore hope that greater use can be made of this alternative method of post mortem examination. Coroners in some areas of England, including Manchester, are already offering bereaved families the option of a non-invasive post mortem, on their own initiative. I with the support of the Secretary of State want this option to be available to all bereaved families in England and Wales, where circumstances permit, and we are already working towards this, pending the implementation of the provisions in the Bill. As Mr de Rivaz points out, the use of MRI scans for post mortem examinations is also currently being piloted formally in Manchester (and also in two other areas) by the Department of Health. The results of these research projects are expected to be available next year, and they will help to clarify the types of cases where the use of MRI scanning might be appropriate. It is already clear that an MRI scan may not be appropriate in every case and therefore the coroner will be required to consider its usefulness on a case by case basis. It will always be a decision solely for the coroner whether or not to offer the option of a non-invasive post mortem. However, there are, of course, some types of case in which a non-invasive post mortem would never be appropriate, for example where the death is known or thought to be the result of violent crime. I look forward to your support for this important measure when it returns to the House of Commons for further consideration. I thank you for your interest in the Coroners and Justice Bill, and have included a copy of this letter for you to forward to Mr de Rivaz should you wish to do so. <<<<< -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz: http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy, Nomad .. and more Content-Type: text/html; [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31743