X-Message-Number: 5876
From: John Sharman <>
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: The man who sued for the right to be suspended before "death"
speaks out
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 96 02:02:20 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
This lot (together with a couple of hundred extra lines) popped up in
uk legal, but I have directed this reply away from there.
In article <>
"John de Rivaz" writes:
> These are crossposts from the Cryonet that are relevant to the "Death" and
> other cryonics threads.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> Message #5860
> From: (Thomas Donaldson)
> Subject: Re: UK lawyers objections to cryonics
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 15:29:39 -0800 (PST)
>
> Hi!
>
> This is Thomas Donaldson, who sued for the right to be suspended before
> "death", but has been lucky enough to remain alive.
I take it that you lost, then. Did the Judge rule that it would have
been murder/assisted suicide?
>
> First: one PRIMARY comment to the lawyers in Britain who seem to be
> disturbed by cryonics.
Who told you that? I've posted *lots* of objections to deceptive,
misleading or false advertising or other representations. I've seen lots
querying the scientific basis for the assumptions of cryonicists.
Several people have said that it's not for them. I can't recall anyone
in uk.legal being "disturbed" by cryonics, though. I get disturbed about
cryonics posts with no legal content appearing in uk.legal but that
another matter. It's also why this post won't be appearing there.
> Cryonics is far better than the current practise, in
> many medical cases, of keeping someone alive but unconscious on a
> respirator, etc. First, it costs a whole lot less (look at the figures).
When what is being artificially preserved is a mere shell of true human
"life" then I agree with you and so, broadly, does UK law.
Can I ask you, Mr. Donaldson, why it is that cryonicists seem to think
that anyone who fails to agree with everything they say and everything
they do must be "against cryonics" or "eating the bodies of other
people" or "greedily preying on fellow human beings" and other equally
florid expressions.
I have found only a couple of your number who are willing and able to
engage in a meaningful discussion of the subject and even they have a
strong tendency to accuse the other party of saying things that actually
have not been said at all. A couple of the others are apparently completely
brain damaged already and dysfunctional.
Your own post (which I shall be snipping in the interests of bandwidth)
has a certain evangelical tone to it in the way in which it purports to
answer questions which have not been asked.
I think that I shall probably be cremated when I die. You want to be
frozen. Why is it that you feel you have to persuade a lot of strangers
that your decision in this regard is somehow "right" while I couldn't
care less what anyone outside my immediate family thinks about the
manner of the disposal of my remains?
> Second, if it succeeds then the person will be recovered whole and able to
> cope for themselves; if it fails then less will have been spent in that
> failure than in many (no, not all) cases of ordinary medicine. When a lot
> of medicine is paid for by the state, ultimately through taxes, this may
> not SEEM an issue, but that is an illusion.
>
> Sure, the National Health may pay for the current kind of care, while the
> individual must pay for cryonics. If you look purely at the cost to the UK
> government, cryonics wins again (that is, if you allow suspension before
> formal declaration of "death"). The cost to the UK government goes down to
> ZERO. The individual patient handles all further costs.
Unfortunately, this is unlawful killing as the law stands and
legislation will be required to change that. That being so, you should
really be posting to uk.politics rather than uk.legal.
> What? You think that the individual patients shouldn't be able to spend
> their money as they wish, and that it all should go to the UK government?
> Fine. You should not be able to spend YOUR money as you wish either: sauce
> for the goose should be sauce for the gander. And if you really want to
> press that line politically, don't be surprised to see the UK government
> telling you what to do with your money too. You gave it the power, why
> should it stop with cryonicists? Maybe it should control the income and
> spending of solicitors and barristers too.
Where did that idea spring from? I've not seen anyone in uk.legal
suggesting that people should not be able to spend their own money. If a
bequest infringes the Perpetuities and Accumulations rules, the gift
lapses and goes with residuary estate; it is not taken by the
government.
[.. well-meaning evangelism ..]
--
Regards,
John Sharman
+====================================================================+
| John Sharman Internet: |
| Tel/Fax: +44 (0)1603 452142 |
+====================================================================+
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5876