X-Message-Number: 3764
Subject: Reply
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:03:51 -0800 (PST)

On 26 Jan 95 19:09:54 EST  wrote:

snip snip...

> A legitimate question then is "where do you draw the line?"

I agree that this is the real issue at hand here, and that is precisely why I 
suggested that we try to think of our patients as being alive so that we can 
know where to draw this line! Where those of us who have given consent to
release our case histories are concerned, I'm sure that what most of us had 
in mind was data regarding transport, perfusion and cooldown. We give this 
sort of consent in the hopes that study and discussion will lead to improved 
suspension technology. I seriously doubt that ANYONE having consented on 
paper had in mind that their marital problems, neuroses, credit rating et 
cetera would be a part of that public discussion. In other words, what I'm 
asking for, is the application of some common sense to this problem.

Darwin's legally defined (or undefined) relationship with his former employer 
is not relevant or important to me. If his attitude and intentions regarding 
patients' privacy are that he will remain just inside the boundaries of the 
law, then it is well that he discloses that now so that people can decide if 
that's good enough for them.

Re Metzger's #3755

Once again, Perry accuses me of character assassination. I can see where
my having related various *truths* about Saul Kent might look that way to 
anyone who insists on closing their eyes to the facts, but it is impossible 
for me to understand how Perry sees "character assassination" in a 
discussion of patient's privacy.

Ever forward,



Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3764