X-Message-Number: 5463
From:  (hEpCaT)
Subject: Re: Standards and Accreditation
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 07:09:09 -0800 (PST)

> Message #5451
> From: Peter Merel <>
> Subject: Standards and Accreditation
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:47:48 +1100 (EST)

snip...

The ideas on accredidation are right on. As for why I'm not the guy to
set it up, there's no doubt many reasons, but the most obvious ones are 
that I'm already dedicated to one organization in particular (I created and 
maintain Alcor's home page among other things) and I'm also quite a hothead.
The job would require impartiality.

snip...

> Oh, I very much agree. Part of a standard for cryonics organisations
> should evaluate their awareness, compliance and preparedness to deal
> with the local laws, constabulary and politicians. I'd expect a cryonics
> standard to go into this in detail.  Cryonics organisations may bitch
> about the costs involved in employing qualified people to perform such
> functions, but so far as I can see there are no two ways about this -
> either organisations are trying to preserve their patients by minimising
> their legal exposure, or they are not.

Of course I strongly agree with this. But the particular instance of legal
exposure which gets everyone so upset whenever I bring it up, was well
known to most of the activists in the cryonics community within a few months
after it occured. 

snip...

> David, I *want* people here to take your concerns seriously. I think
> they're just as important to the long term survival of patients as the
> medical techniques that are being developed.

Unfortunately, long before I ever said anything, "reasonable" people who 
were fully informed about the threat to long-term patient survival got busy 
deciding to ignore it. After Alcor took action to eliminate their "problem" 
they got that memo from Saul Kent advocating that they reverse themselves. 
Since that didn't happen, there is now a family of companies designed to 
compete primarily by using the services of BPI.

How do you get mutually agreed upon standards from people who can't agree
on so basic a rule as "Thou shall not hasten thy member's imminent legal
death"? This was my point when I said that your suggestions are very 
fine but impractical.

And absent an agreement on this fundamental standard, I still think its
only fair that disclosures of likely risks be made. Say that I'm flaming 
if you will, but if you sir, can persuade those responsible to make such 
disclosures, then I will gladly shut up and you'll have my gratitude & 
respect.

Ever forward,

David

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Cosenza                                           
PGP 2.3a Public Keys available by finger or ftp.netcom.com:/pub/dc/dcosenza
1264-bit Key fingerprint = BF 6C AA 44 C6 CA 13 3F  4A EC 0A 90 AE F3 74 6D
4096-bit Key fingerprint = A4 79 15 79 D2 73 7D 3F  34 88 2E ED 93 6F 46 B1
     "When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption."

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5463