X-Message-Number: 3736
Subject: Re: Problems in cryonics
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:40:51 -0800 (PST)

On 23 Jan 95 04:02:57 EST  wrote:

snip snip...

> Finally Cosenza says I violate patient patient confidences.  I do not.  

I didn't say that you violated patient confidences, but rather their 
*privacy*. There's a difference! 

Re discussions of case histories, I have no problem with such discussions 
per se (or using the patient's ID #), but their personal life and any 
psychological problems they may have are seldom relevant to those histories,
and IMO should be excluded from any such discussions on the net or any other
public forum! I am familiar with the terms and conditions of the Alcor 
Consent for Cryonic Suspension Contract I signed, and NOWHERE to my 
recollection does it say that published case histories should include info 
about the patient's personal life or mental illness (if any), and it 
certainly doesn't give anyone the authority to disclose such information 
publicly. At least, not in my interpretation of it. It would be helpful if 
we tried to think of these patients as *living* people. By doing that, the 
standard that ought to apply whenever we discuss them becomes obvious.

> Also, I fail to see how the "tragic deaths" of two Alcor patients are being 
> exploited by me.  

I wasn't talking about two Alcor patients, I was talking about Margaret
Bradshaw's problem. It's pretty tacky to say that brilliant, intelligent and
creative people are often depressed and using Prozac, and then to follow 
that up by saying oh and by the way, I'm depressed and use Prozac. By those
standards, I'd be another DaVinci! :-)

Ever forward,


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3736