X-Message-Number: 5408 Newsgroups: sci.cryonics From: (Brad Templeton) Subject: Re: Trans Time, Inc. Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 04:56:50 GMT Message-ID: <> References: <> <> <> <> In article <>, Brian Wowk <> wrote: >In <> (hEpCaT) writes: > >>Well Mr. Wowk, I'm not the only one still waiting for some answers. > > Carlos publizes a *confidential* memo sent by Saul Kent to the >Alcor Board two years ago, and you expect *me* to respond? Do I look >like Saul Kent? More to the point, how, after such a blatant breach >of trust by an Alcor Board member for political purposes, can you possibly >demand that *anyone* respond? If morality is a bank balance, you, sir, >are very seriously overdrawn. There are many reasons why confidences exist and while it is immoral to break them. But it is not automatic that this be the case. Clearly those who accept private information about individuals should keep it confidential if they agree to. In addition, organizations that want to run smoothly know that it usually does nobody any good to air internal dirty laundry, not because it's immoral to do so, but because it is unproductive, and raises the stakes in the conflict to a level that is rarely beneficial. (Ie. once you take a conflict public it is often much more difficult to reconcile.) I don't know under what terms Saul Kent sent in his letter. The details in the letter seem to be matters of interest to Alcor's members, not inherently private information. Confidentiality of board meetings is not there to hide wrong-doing, after all. Of course Mr. Kent is not accused of wrong-doing. Mr. Darwin is. To judge the morality, we need to know under what terms Alcor agreed his letter should be secret. Anyway, not saying that the poster didn't violate proper principles of confidentiality -- just that it's not cut and dried without the proper evidence. However, I will say this. If Mr. Darwin did indeed, as alleged, euthanise patients under his care, then morally I would say there is a duty to inform those who might work with him or be suspended by him, if he is not doing so himself. Only a very strictly worded formal agreement of confidentiality could conceivably stand against that. I have no idea whether he did it or not, but as you probably know, if he did do this the law actually requires the breaking of any agreement of confidentiality on the issue -- indeed to not break such a confidentiality would make one criminally liable. -- Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp. The net's #1 E-Newspaper (1,160,000 paid sbscrbrs.) http://www.clari.net/brad/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5408