X-Message-Number: 5763
Date: 19 Feb 96 14:28:07 EST
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Opinion And Choice

	Marshall Rice says he doesn't believe it will ever be possible to restore
today's cryonics patients  to life with their identities intact.  That's fine
with me.  He's entitled to his opinion and he may be right.  That's why I've
been funding research and pushing as hard as I can to * improve* and,
eventually, perfect  freezing methods.
	Where he and I part company is his suggestion that,  perhaps, governments
should ban cryonics because of his (and others) opinion that cryonics (as
practiced today) won't work. If he ever takes any action to implement such a
ban, he will become my mortal enemy.
	Brad Templeton says that cryonics organizations should not suspend anyone

prior to legal death even if it becomes legal to do so.  He goes on to say that:
"If I were a member of a cryonics organization that even publicly considered
suspending a living patient, I would think seriously about switching cryonics
orgs."
	I suspect he may not have that choice.  If freezing before legal death
becomes legal, I doubt that there will be *any* cryonics organization that will
*not* offer this service. I personally don't know of anyone in the cryonics
movement that would not want to take advantage of any legal option that would
increase their chances of survival.
	If public opinion had been a barometer of the practice of cryonics, there

never would have been any cryonics organizations.  Even today, most people share
Marshall Rice's opinion that cryonics (as it is practiced today) won't work.
	That's fine, as long as their opinion doesn't infringe upon my choice.
	Certainly, Brad Templeton will be able to choose to be frozen after legal
death after it is legal to freeze patients *before* legal death, but he may not
be able to find a cryonics organization that denies freezing before legal death
to others.

---Saul Kent


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5763