X-Message-Number: 5910 From: Brian Wowk <> Newsgroups: sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension Subject: Re: Virtue of suffering Date: Fri, 08 Mar 96 22:09:54 GMT John Sharman <> writes: >In article <> "Brian Wowk" writes: >> Post #4, and counting.... If you were on this side of the >> Altlantic, John, you WOULD have a libel lawsuit on your desk right >> now. >Why? Is it or is it not true that 'Net or paper publications issued by >you or your organisation do state that you *may* be able to do that? >Viz: >__BEGIN QUOTE__ >But there is another problematical issue which has been less widely >discussed and is less easy to endorse as an option: disinterment. >It may seem pointless even to consider cryopreserving a person who has >already been embalmed and buried. But the idea is not necessarily as >foolish as it sounds. If we accept the premise that nanotechnology may be >able eventually to undo individual molecular bonds, future science might be >able to rescue a person whose cells have been fixed with glutaraldehyde >(a common embalming agent, similar to formaldehyde). >We are certainly not advocating this as a standard protocol. But suppose we >receive a call from grieving relatives who are eager for CryoCare to freeze >their loved one. Suppose the person has been interred for only a day or two >in a part of the world where temperatures are near freezing. Should we >consider taking the case? >There are three reasons to say "yes." >__END QUOTE__ >Are those words which are or have been published by you or by your >organisation? If the answer is "Yes" then I offer no apology for what I >have said. The answer is "Yes". Allow me to continue quoting from the same article: __BEGIN QUOTE__ But there are also three reasons to say "no." 1. Disinterment has ghoulish associations which could create negative, damaging publicity if details of the case reach the national media. 2. Disinterment usually occurs only in last-minute cases where people have failed to make prior arrangements. Last- minute cases are notoriously risky. Relatives who are desperate to cryopreserve a loved one may be so grief- stricken that they are liable to make a rash decision which they will later regret. They may even decide, some time in the future, that the cryonics organization took advantage of their grief. A law suit may result. Also, relatives may have trouble paying for cryopreservation with a lump sum of cash, and as a result, the cryonics organization will feel tempted to offer a discount or accept a nonstandard method of payment. This, too, can have repercussions. 3. The possibility of reviving a patient who has been embalmed with glutaraldehyde seems relatively remote. It may be unethical for a cryonics organization to accept money for such cases. Overall, at CryoCare, we tend to feel that the disadvantages of disinterment outweigh the positive factors. In fact, we have already turned down one case where disinterment would have been involved. At the same time, those of us who participated in that decision felt some misgivings. It's very hard to say "no" to someone wanting to buy extra life for a loved one who died too soon. __END QUOTE__ But say "no" we did. In February of 1995 CryoCare was contacted by a distraught family who wanted a recently-deceased loved one disinterred and frozen. We REFUSED the case. The case was subsequently accepted by a competing organization, and CryoCare vice president Charles Platt and I came under harsh criticism from some CryoCare members for not accepting the case. (There are those who believe that success in cryonics is measured by the weight of frozen tissue you have stacked up; a view that Charles and I do not share.) The text which you quoted so grossly out of context was part of article entitled "Grey Areas of Cryonics" which appeared in CryoCare Report #3, August 1995, our quarterly newsletter. The purpose of the article was to expain to our critics our rationale for NOT ACCEPTING SUCH CASES. The full text of this newsletter can be viewed at http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/ccrpt3.html Now, Johh Sharman, tell me how this article can possibly justify this statement of yours: >I understand that their advertising contains a suggestion aimed at >prospective customers or, worse, their grieving families which suggests >that it may be possible to revive a corpse which has not only died and >remained at ambient temperature but has actually been embalmed and >buried. How does that grab you? The article in question was NOT advertising. It was NOT aimed at prospective customers. It was NOT aimed at grieving familes. It was aimed at those CryoCare members who were foolish enough to advocate freezing disinterred bodies, WHICH CRYOCARE MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO DO. The simple fact is that CryoCare does not want customers. I say again, >>>>CryoCare does not want customers<<<<< (especially grieving relatives!) What CryoCare wants is long-living, dues-paying members. People who can help support public education and research into cryonics. Frozen bodies don't do that. (CryoCare Bylaws prohibit me from using patient care funds for anything but patient care.) Not only that, but people frozen with current technology (especially under adverse conditions) are a serious long-term liability to the organization in terms of the technology that will be required to revive them, and the length of storage that will be required. How does one measure success in cryonics? At CryoCare we believe that success is measured by the number of living, dues-paying members we have, and the technology level we have ready for them when they need it. As a result, CryoCare currently has the highest ratio of living to cryopreserved members in the industry. We are also the only organization that has never cryopreserved ANYONE at the request of a third party, nor do we wish to. Now go back and read your post. Tell me that someone who read it would not be left believing that CryoCare solicits business from bereaved families (even if their loved ones are already buried!). Yet you KNEW that the article you quoted from repudiates this very practice! Your post was a deliberate and malicious distortion designed to smear the reputation of me and my organization. If this is not a textbook example of libel, then what is? I reiterate my demand that you retract and apologize for your outrageous statement! *************************************************************************** Brian Wowk CryoCare Foundation 1-800-TOP-CARE President Your Gateway to the Future http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5910