X-Message-Number: 32415 From: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:12:02 EST Subject: Re: Removing incentive In addition to clauses in your will preventing others from benefiting from opposing your suspension, you should also let everyone know about these clauses, and that they are ironclad and have passed muster with a lawyer (most conveniently, the one who writes the will.) I expect another 30 years of life, but I plan, now sooner than later, to make a video explaining forcefully that I *do* want cryo, that I have studied the field for years and understand the issues and objections, and that I am NOT going to have a deathbed change of mind. Also that I have seen old people get weak, and then they will agree to anything anyone says, just so they will go away and let them sleep. While I would resist, I too could get weak and say Yes, but rejecting cryo is not something I would do when of sound mind. Etc., repeated in every way I can think of, so that even the most prejudiced or ignorant court must understand what my wish is. I think such a video would be very persuasive and help quash any court action against cryo. I urge others to do this too. Alan Mole In a message dated 2/23/2010 3:00:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, writes: CryoNet - Tue 23 Feb 2010 #32409: Message #32403 [doctor Robert] #32410: Removing incentive [Keith Henson] #32411: Re: CryoNet #32404 - #32408 [RAMole] #32412: Talking point suggestion re: the Robbins case [MARK PLUS] #32413: Re: PR debacles and how to avoid future ones [David Stodolsky] Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32409%2D32413 Administrivia To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to: with the subject line (not message _body_): subscribe To unsubscribe, use the subject line: unsubscribe To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to: from the same address to which you are aubscribed. Message #32409 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:24:35 -0800 Subject: Message #32403 From: doctor Robert <> --0016e6d644f52c978c04803562e7 Hi All: Thanks Mark for this VERY important and timely question. I have suggested that we all talk to our relatives about our plans and wishes. If any of them indicate the slightest reserve, hesitancy or withholds, then endeavor to get them to sign an agreement TO NOT INTERFERE. Get this signed, witnessed by a family member who is completely supportive, and dated. Send it to Alcor and keep a copy. You may have to negotiate with the relative, like leaving something in the will to that person, with provisions to subtract Alcor's legal costs if they try to interfere. It is the communication that is the absolutely most important part of this. Each one of us is individually responsible for doing this, as you can see, Alcor is not your fail safe here because legal issues take time and that is the one thing that cannot be compromised in your suspension. Dr. Robert Newport, Medial Advisory Board. Alcor Life Extension Foundation -- --0016e6d644f52c978c04803562e7 [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32409 Message #32410 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:52:42 -0700 Subject: Removing incentive From: Keith Henson <> Some of the recent problem with suspensions may be coming from relatives having a financial incentive to block suspensions. If we think about it, most of us have a relative hostile to cryonics who could be in a place to block a suspension depending on who died first. I think the section of the contract that specifies where the suspension funding goes needs to be modified. In fact I am going to do this myself soon as I can get it worded correctly Delete the section about who gets the funding if an Alcor member is not suspended with this. *********** In the event a suspension cannot be performed, (lost at sea, WTC collapse, etc.) Alcor is still the beneficiary of the suspension funding. In such cases, Alcor may at its sole discretion pay part or all of the suspension funding to a person or persons named here or to the estate of the member. (name of person, persons) Alcor is forbidden to pay any part of the suspension funding to a person or persons who have interfered with the member's prompt suspension. ********** Please comment. I want to get this right the first time. Keith Henson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32410 Message #32411 From: Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:19:13 EST Subject: Re: CryoNet #32404 - #32408 There must be many ways to prevent greedy relatives from trying to get suspension money by canceling suspensions. One's will might specify the exact amounts (not percentages) to each relative and suspension, with the rest going to reanimation trusts or charities. Preferably, "the rest" would be a lot, so there is a comfortable safety factor. Thus the relatives would not benefit form canceling a suspension. Better yet is a clause deleting the inheritance of anyone interfering.Or, as Rudy says, the insurance beneficiary may be Alcor/SA/CI directly. What I think is needed here is just some legal advice showing how to structure a will with standard clauses to remove the possibility of relatives profiting if a suspension is prevented. Alan Mole In a message dated 2/22/2010 3:00:33 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, writes: Mary Robbins's relatives might have decided to interfere with her suspension because they had heard the previous episodes of bad publicity regarding Alcor, including rumors of the abuse of a frozen head. If they succeed in preventing Robbins's suspension, while also intercepting the money she had set aside for it, that will give other members' relatives the precedent and incentive to try to stop their suspensions. And even if Alcor wins custody of Robbins's body, the media might frame the story in a way sympathetic to the relatives and derogatory to Alcor, contributing to problems down the line with other suspensions opposed by the suspendees' family members. What should we do to keep this from happening to potentially all of us with living relatives? [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32411 Message #32412 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:24:12 -0700 Subject: Talking point suggestion re: the Robbins case From: MARK PLUS <> --00504502e36acffe5904803b3e95 If you get into any online discussions about the Robbins case, and people ask about the source of new bodies for neuropatients, you might refer them to the emerging, non-science fictional technology of organ printing: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22organ+printing%22&aq=f&aqi= g3g-m2&oq= One of the scientists in this field, Dr. Vladimir Mironov, extended the concept to printing a whole human body a few years ago in an article in "The Futurist" magazine: Beyond cloning: toward human printing http://www.box.net/shared/static/p3idvxvlcb.html If printing a whole human body becomes practical, that obviously suggests itself as a solution to the needs of revived neuropatients for new bodies. -- Mark Plus Life is short: Freeze hard! --00504502e36acffe5904803b3e95 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32415