X-Message-Number: 32423 From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: How to protect yourself Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:34:34 +0100 References: <> On 24 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote: > How can you protect yourself? > > Make sure that your life insurance policy says that if you don't get > suspended for any reason that the proceeds still go to your cryonics > organization and not your relatives. So there is no financial > incentive for the relatives to cause you to cancel your arrangements. > > Put a clause in your will that says that if you don't get suspended > that all your estate goes to your cryonics company and not your > relatives so that there is a financial incentive for your relatives > to see that you do get suspended. > > > Maybe have two beneficiaries on your life insurance policy. One is > your suspension company and the other is your relatives. If you get > suspended Alcor or CI gets their money and your relatives get some > too. If you don't get suspended then Alcor or CI get all the money > and your relatives get nothing. > > Make a video of your wishes and send it to your cryonics > organization to keep in case there is trouble when you get old and > infirm. These and the suggestions offered by others today are fine. However, they don't alter the fact that a good outcome is dependent upon a single person not changing their mind. The fact that that person may become infirm and in the final analysis have their affairs taken over by others creates increased risk. We are seeing repeated instances of problems with this type of arrangement. The suggestions may make it harder for relatives to interfere, but that doesn't resolve the basic issue. There is a difference between *doing the right thing* and *doing the thing right*. All these suggestions are about how to do the thing right. However, the problems are a result of not doing the right thing. One of the lessons of modernity is that decisions about life and death should not be left in the hands of individuals. An example of this is death penalty cases, where a (separate) jury trial is required in the USA. Another is voluntary euthanasia in The Netherlands, where a second opinion is a requirement. Decisions by a judge may appear to be that of a single individual, but the judge is depending upon many earlier decisions and a ruling can be appealed. Therefore, it is not actually the will of a single person that is final. There are many examples in the history of cryonics of problems resulting from placing life and death decisions in the hands of individuals. The Chatsworth disaster was probably the worst. However, we have seen many cases where suspension contracts were cancelled or blocked. The Tim Leary case was probably the most high profile of these. Insurance policies and wills are not socially accepted methods of making life and death decisions. Depending upon them in suspension cases is the source of the problem. When a suspension is contested in court, that is just a recognition that life and death decisions ultimately must not be determined by the will of a single individual. Since cryonicists, more than others, regard these as life and death decisions, we should be the first to acknowledge that problem. We have the choice of ensuring that the decisions don't rest in the hands of an individual by forming appropriate collective bodies. If we don't, then we can expect that such decisions will be taken out of our hands and be subject to rulings by a society appointed collective. There is precedent for this analysis in the law with respect to rulings by ecclesiastical courts. When they rule on family matters, such as divorce settlements, the secular courts try to avoid becoming involved. A real improvement in security requires a different type of social arrangement, where there are multiple individuals, selected for competence, that make the decision. This is one benefit of my proposal for shifting to a corporate funding mechanism. There are many others, including making it a lot easier to make the decision to be suspended and ensuring that funding is available. > > Help create a cryonics community where older cryonicists can live > until their suspension time. This is certainly a good idea, however, a limited number of persons can or will take advantage of it. We need to create communities where people are already living. Disruption of a person's social and physical environment is a major health risk in late life, therefore, a major move is not advisable. dss David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32423