X-Message-Number: 5536
Date:  Wed, 03 Jan 96 13:59:34 
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: More on Michels tragedy

To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, Alcor
January 3, 1995

Re:  Message #5532
     Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 22:33:32 -0500 (EST)
     From: Robin Helweg-Larsen <>
     Subject: Re: CryoNet 5462; Rob Michels


     All of us were very upset by Rob Michels' death and non-suspension.
Rob was a friend of several Alcor members, including some of our staff.
However, I really can't publicly respond to Robin Helweg-Larsen in any
specific way, since a number of these deliberations and actions are
confidential, some out of consideration for the feelings of Rob's family
in this tragedy.  The legal specifics of this case are not public and
might never be.  This is something that every Alcor President has had to
consider in both legal and patient confidentiality matters -- what to tell
and what not to tell.

     However, Rob was also an open cryonicist and a futurist.  As I would
choose in similar circumstances, I believe Rob would want these issues
debated for the benefit of other cryonicists.  While I cannot discuss any
more specifics than I did in my original post, I encourage CryoNetters to
debate the *general* issues here.  We can all learn something for future
cases; and Alcor and I might get ideas on this case.

     Some general issues to discuss might be:

1.  How likely is it that a small (say 10 cc) amount of brain tissue,
possibly randomly taken from a human brain after at least seven days at
room temperature will contain useful information about that individual's
identity?

2.  How can we best educate police forces and medical examiners to the
legalities of cryonic suspension, including whole body anatomical donation?

3.  How can we get past the requirements in all states that an autopsy be
performed in cases of suspicious death, and which in most states give the
coroner or medical examiner almost unlimited power to determine what is to
be done?  (Some successes in the past notwithstanding.)

4.  What statements and conditions should cryonicists place in their
suspension paperwork?  To what extent can these statements obligate
the suspension organization?  For instance, if someone decides to require
an organization to guarantee that it will spend a million dollars on
recovering his remains or suing legal authorities, but he only provides
$50,000 in funding, should the organization accept him as a member?  (This
situation is only hypothetical and should not be interpreted to mean some
Alcor member has actually done that.)

5.  Obviously some legal cases are ones where a cryonics organization is
required to spend whatever is required, no matter what, because its
survival and the survival of its patients are on the line.  Alcor fought at
least two of those, in the cases against the Riverside County Coroner and
the California Department of Health.  What other types of cases might be
worth the full resources of the organization?  (Someday, of course, it is
likely that EACH organization will have to answer this question personally
-- and more than once.)

     As you debate these questions, please remember to place yourself into
the situation of a Director or Officer of a cryonics company with several
patients already in suspension (let's say they include your spouse or
parent or best friend).  The decisions that are made in every legal
situation and some technical ones include the question:  What can we do
here that will not increase the risk to current patients or compromise our
ability to suspend other members?  That risk can range as far as 1) delay
in preparing for the next suspension, 2) financial collapse from legal
bills, 3) reverse lawsuits that endanger the legal status of the
organization, and even 4) protesters with Molotov cocktails.

Steve Bridge, President
Alcor Foundation


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5536