X-Message-Number: 3226 From: Subject: CRYONICS Re: failing organizations and thawing patients Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 00:02:09 -0700 (PDT) : > > Just a minor point, but actually two cryonics organizations have gone > > under and lost patients. > > No, if you count "losing patients" as "patients thawing in spite of > the fact that there were contractual obligations to keep them in LN2", > only one has defaulted on its obligations, specifically Nelson's > organization. I've never seen CSC's or CSNY's contracts, so I can't say with any certainty that you're right. Have you seen them? > If you count being forced, by default of the entity > paying for ongoing care or legal reasons being invoked to remove a > patient from storage, ALL current cryonics organizations (other than > perhaps CI) have been in that position. I was not. > The only other cryonics > organization other than Nelson's to fail only lost patients because > their funding arrangements ended and not because of negligence on the > part of the organization. I disagree with you here, I think negligence is the best face you can hope to put on it. Like CSNY, CSC also collapsed because its patients' "funding arrangements" failed, but what made it worse was that Nelson didn't tell anybody what was going down! Both of these organizations knowingly accepted inadequate funding on the premise that future business would bail them out. If the promises made to the customers had been of profit, AND if they'd been legally alive when the pyramid collapsed, it would have been known as a Ponzi scheme and the perpetrators would have been prosecuted criminally. Ever forward, David -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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=3226