X-Message-Number: 4062
From: 
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 18:42:05 -0500
Subject: Cosenza's question

David Cosenza asks how Cryonics Institute can deal with the risks if it
accepts patients for storage who were initially prepared by others (e.g. a
service provider for the American Cryonics Society or the CryoCare
Foundation). 

In particular, what if such organization breaks some law or is suspected of
doing so--specifically, medicating or perfusing before legal death--possibly
leading to demands for autopsy after the patient is already at CI, or leading
to other threats to the security of CI and its other patients?

1. We will naturally try at all times to stay apprised of the policies and
procedures of all such people. If we seem to have reason for concern, we will
take appropriate steps, including the possibility of breaking off relations.

2. Yes, we do think that the separation of services in such cases would
provide some insulation. After all, if a cemetery accepts someone for burial,
and later a murder investigation requires exhumation, no one blames the
cemetery. The parallel is not perfect, but there would certainly be some
degree of protection. This is especially true since we are in another state.

3. The parent or oversight organization (ACS or CC) would also have a vital
interest and resources to apply. It also wants to prevent any such incident
in the first place, and if it nevertheless happens will be highly motivated
to repair the damage and to pay for it or help pay for it.

I think Mr. Cosenza's reference to possible "destruction" of CI in this
connection is exaggerated. We will never give up a patient, or allow
endangerment of a patient, willingly or easily. At the same time, we are
realists, and keep the safety of ALL our patients in mind, which includes the
viability of the organization. If we are ever compelled by legal process to
surrender a patient for autopsy, after as much legal resistance as we can
afford--and we have excellent lawyers--then we will do it (and of course try
to keep the autopsy as limited and brief as possible). (We recall that Alcor
not long ago was forced to  relinquish a patient when a relative successfully
sued.)

Of course I am aware, along with many who read this,  of the background to
Mr. Cosenza's question--going back, among other things, to the Dora Kent case
when Mike Darwin headed Alcor. And many know that I have had extremely sharp
differences with Mike in the past. Regardless of that history and its
interpretation, that was then and this is now; most of us have learned a good
deal and a lot more people are involved and watching. We'll keep our guard
up, but I think we are on a prudent course. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4062