X-Message-Number: 5801
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 96 19:50:31
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Cryonics and Assisted "Suicide"
To CryoNet and SCI.CRYONICS
>From Steve Bridge
February 22, 1996
In reply to Message #5749
Newsgroups: uk.legal,sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension
From: (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Virtue of suffering
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996
And Message #5778
Subject: Pre-death suspension
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:49:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Brad Templeton <>
And the various replies to Brad.
I've been out for three days and am just catching up. Many of the
respondents to Brad expressed my feelings and, I think, those of other
Alcor members. But I don't think we have fully addressed Brad's
questions. Let me try to explore this further.
In his first message, Brad said:
>As far as I am concerned cryonics organizations should stay as far as
>possible from any attempt to suspend before legal death, *including*
>legal assisted suicide, should it ever be allowed.
>You just have to look at the debates over assisted suicide to realize
>that people are against it even when the patients face painful, lingering
>death, and suspect the motives of the doctors and all those involved.
From my experience, Brad misreads the objections of the *majority* of
the general public (although some certainly will feel the way he
describes). I believe that the public is mostly confused that we are
freezing "dead people." They object that we cannot bring "dead people"
back to life. Of course, they misunderstand how they misuse the label
"dead" and how that label is likely to change over time. But explaining
this to people is almost always a one-to-one task and will always be
difficult.
More of the public will see cryonics as a *reasonable* course of
action if we could only freeze people "just before" they "die." Again,
most people misunderstand what this means. They seem to think that
predicting death is like the self-destruct mechanism on a Federation
Starship: "Attention: the brain will self-destruct in 15 minutes." Death
comes at a specific time, with proper warning, and once it comes, it is
irreversible and completely destructive. This is true even of very
educated people who should realize that their knowledge is weak. But
"everyone knows what death is." (Ask anyone you meet; no one will say, "I
don't know.")
So these people believe that we can see death coming and can say,
"OK, he's going to die in 30 minutes. Let's get him frozen first." If we
*could* technically (and legally!) do that, I believe that the large
majority of people would find this acceptable. However, if we say, "OK,
he's going to die in 6 months. Let's get him frozen first," most people
would NOT be happy about that. Again, it may be a misunderstanding that
requires a lot of education. And I don't yet have a good feeling for how
many hours or days before death would be acceptable to a large enough
group. But eventually the education will be done, and the answer will
become clear.
>Now you want to have the sick opting for the assisted suicide of
>cryonics? As far as the public is concerned this will mean quacks
>selling a fraudulent scheme for huge sums, giving the terminally ill
>a clearly false hope in order to make a bundle. You don't view it
>that way but I can assure you the public will.
Again, I don't think so. I think most of those people who feel
cryonics is a fraud feel that way *because they think we are freezing dead
people.* Even with that assumption, many change their minds as they
discover that:
1) cryonicists are spending their own money, not tax money.
2) the costs are reasonable when the structure of investments for
long-term storage is considered.
3) Most cryonics organizations are non-profit.
>If I were a member of a cryonics org that even publicly considered
>suspending a living patient, I would thing seriously about switching
>cryonics orgs. That org won't be around long.
Actually, I think that when cryonics groups can begin freezing
terminal, but legally alive, patients, millions of people will suddenly
"understand" cryonics. "Oh, I see. They're saving lives! What a great
idea!"
Just in case anyone is wondering, Alcor is not proposing to just
freeze someone while they're alive and *then* hope we win the test case.
That is a huge risk to the organization and to my personal health, which
likely would be adversely affected by a few years in a state-run concrete
resort.
Also, it might be useful to remind everyone about Thomas Donaldson's
story. Thomas has a brain tumor. This is a particularly nasty sort of
tumor -- if it begins growing again and cannot be halted quickly, it will
destroy Thomas's memory and identity long before it stops his heart (i.e.,
"kills him" as physicians would define it.) He's been fortunate so far
(as have we all); its growth was stopped by medical treatments and Thomas
has been able to work and interact with all of us for years.
But in 1990, when it looked possible that Thomas might be in danger
of dying in the next few months, Alcor and Thomas went to court to request
1) that he be given legal permission to go into suspension before legal
death, by the mechanism of some form of assisted suicide and 2) that the
local coroner be enjoined from interfering with the suspension and from
conducting an autopsy.
The judges were not unsympathetic to Thomas's plight; but they could
not approve of this action. They would have to overturn California's
statute against assisted suicide and they felt that should be done only by
the legislature or the voters. This case is actually quite well-known
among medical ethicists and is discussed in several recent works in the
field.
One surprising public effect of the media blitz at that time was the
outpouring of empathy for Thomas's situation. For the first time many
people found themselves imagining what they would do in that situation,
and a lot of them said cryonics sounded a lot better than having one's
mind slowly disappear.
During the following six years, we have seen an unprecedented series
of positive media reports on cryonics. I think if we would do a poll on
cryonics right now, we might well see that over 50% of moderately well-
educated adults would think that cryonics should be legal. (Maybe highly
regulated, and that's not to say they would do it themselves, but legal.*)
I do not see this going backwards merely because better suspensions
become possible through some variation on assisted suicide. Most people
will understand that we are using the law for our own purposes (as long as
we continue to explain it properly).
In his second message, Brad stated:
>Actually, I think I won't have the choice because cryonics will become
>illegal if anybody attempts this. Did Mrs. Kent teach you nothing?
>The public -- and the legal officials, do not think in a way we would
>consider "rational" in this matter.
If Alcor attempts this, it will be after some legal authority tells
us we can or in some other fairly "safe" situation.
And who is "the public?" The "public" is a lot of different
individuals, including all of us reading this today. Many of them will be
incensed if a government attempts to legislate us out of existence. And
we have learned enough to know how to make sure those people on our side
*find out* what is happening. We are corresponding on one of those
methods right now.
Indeed, the Dora Kent case taught us a lot. It taught us that:
1. If a cryonics company is secretive about its purposes and procedures,
the public will assume it is a cult or bunch of kooks. If we are open and
above-board, they are *more* likely to see us as an asset to the
community. Witness Alcor's acceptance in Scottsdale.
2. Even the worst publicity can be turned in our favor once we are given
the chance to tell our side of the story. Of course, it is better to have
good relationships with the press and local authorities FIRST; but even
then, a rational and thoughtful response can often gain sympathy.
3. Many of the public is already sympathetic to us and hostile to an
over-bearing government.
4. A good attorney on your side will whip most uneducated opponents.
>Look at the facts:
>
> a) In B.C., cryonics is already illegal under the thought that it
> sells a false hope, and is thus a fraud, even in spite of
> all the disclaimers put into cryonics contracts
If anyone had KNOWN that such an action was contemplated, there would
have been open hearings and it is unlikely the law would have passed.
Incidentally, such a secret law is less likely in the U.S., because of the
various "sunshine laws" that most states have.
> b) People regularly accuse cryonics organizations of being snake
> oil salesmen, selling a false hope either for the money or,
> once they learn that nobody in cryonics is making
> money, the power trip.
Because they think we are freezing "dead people."
> c) In current right to die cases the motives of the doctors and
> others involved not just in assisting the suicide but in
> convincing or not convincing the patient to consider suicide
> are examined strongly. All involved take extreme care to
> display what most people would consider the purist of motives.
> The doctors certainly waive any fees to my understanding.
We can also take extreme care. The typical laws that are proposed
for assisted suicide provide enough buffer for us.
> Even in spite of that the public is divided on the issue,
> suspicious or hateful of those involved. They barely vote
> for the right to die initiatives and they get reversed.
But the division is changing in the FAVOR of individual right to
choose, not against it. I do not see that if a legislature or public vote
finally causes assisted suicide to become legal in one state, that somehow
a majority of voters or legislators will suddenly say "except for
cryonicists! Let those suckers suffer!" And such a limitation would be
ruled discriminatory.
>Now the public will perceive Cryonics as con game that is killing people,
>making them believe, in their desperation that they have a hope of life
>after death if they just hand over $50,000 and let the cryonicists kill
>them a little ahead of time (better chance of revival) and cut their head
>off to freeze it. Are you out of your skulls? You don't think
>cryonics will avoid banning if the public gets that perception?
We don't present it that way, and we can find ways to educate the
public and legislators not to see it that way. All new technology
includes and requires the ability to explain it to the public. If you go
out on television and explain nothing except that Eric Drexler is
inventing a technology that will destroy the earth and give governments
the power to control our brains, you might have a chance of getting
nanotechnology outlawed. In Mississippi and Idaho, perhaps. There would
be hundreds of people presenting the opposite view as well, of course.
I think Brad's concern is misplaced here. And I am hardly a radical,
wild-eyed fellow. If anything, I tend to be more conservative than
average about how long it will take before cryonics works and about the
public reaction.
Steve Bridge
Stephen Bridge, President ()
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Phone (602) 922-9013 (800) 367-2228 FAX (602) 922-9027
for general requests
http://www.webcom.com/~alcor
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5801