X-Message-Number: 32699
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:45:11 -0500
Subject: Coercion, not paternalism - unchosen cryostasis
From: Finance Department <>

--000e0cd312fc25cb3b048b2b18eb

A founder of the idea of cryonics, Bob Ettinger, wrote on "unchosen
cryostasis" a couple of days ago in Message #32694.

Despite the respect I have for all he has done for cryonics over the
decades, I regret to differ somewhat from him on this subject, and now have
to wonder how many of his two wives and other persons he has cryopreserved,
were done so with their pre-arranged consent.

I will not debate his statements; rather, will simply offer my own.  Mine
are pretty simple. Anyone's choice of the disposition of her/his body should
be respected and honored, whether it be cryosuspension, cremation, burial,
or about anything else one might imagine.  People should have rights, and
those rights should be extended to the desire for suicide or not, as well as
the desire for what happens to their bodies after death is declared.

The next of kin should have no rights that supersede those given in writing
by the deceased.  This is contrary to existing law most places in the USA
and is a matter which cryonics organizations should immediately start
addressing as a problem to be fixed.

If someone is so lax as to leave no written instructions, I see no reason
the next of kin should not have the right to decide for that person as to
the disposition of the declared-dead body, including cryopreservation for
that person.  But that next of kin should never have the right to override
the wishes clearly expressed previously by the deceased.

Those who choose something different from cryopreservation should have their
choices honored by everyone.  Even if such a choice means to cryonicists
"choosing death".  Similarly, those who choose to suicide should have the
right to do so without "big daddy" intervening and providing coercive
changes.

Bob spends a lot of time focusing on the "children or mentally incompetent
patients" scenario.  His attempts to make it sound like everyone fits into
that are transparent.  The vast majority do not.  Those who do, well sure, I
agree, decide for them.  But not for most of us who have expressed our
wishes for ourselves - decide according to that instead.  Please.

Otherwise it is coercion, not merely paternalism.  And coercion is a
violation of human rights.

Cheers,

FD

--000e0cd312fc25cb3b048b2b18eb

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32699