X-Message-Number: 5911
From: (Brian Wowk)
Newsgroups: uk.legal,sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: Virtue of suffering
Date: 11 Mar 96 00:00:37 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In <> John Sharman <>
writes:
>> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Don't perpetrate a too obvious a fraud in case you get caught.
Cheap shot, and you know it. As if the whole purpose of
cryonics is to sneak around and commit fraud to the maximum
extent possible. Why don't you just ask me if I deny beating
my wife?
> 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.
>Watch out for your income. And you call *lawyers* money-grubbing!
Cheapest shot yet. Is this how you argue in court??
(And exactly where did I call lawyers money-grubbing?)
>> Overall, at CryoCare, we tend to feel that the
>> disadvantages of disinterment outweigh the positive factors.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What "positive factors"?
The usual prattle I get from people who want me to accept
these cases: "It will promote the image of the organization as
positive and caring, create economies of scale, cause more families
to join after we freeze their loved one..." and bullshit like that.
>I will place on record that I was pretty
>shocked when I read some of the stuff which Cryocare makes available for
>public consumption. Surely you must realise that it disasterously
>undermines your efforts to build some respectability. I am quite
>prepared to accept that you are not a deliberate con-man. But do you not
>see that you *do* mislead or deceive or at least run an uncontrolled
>risk of doing so?
I actually thank you very much for offering your thoughts on
this issue. The way you have (over)reacted to the mere *discussion* of
freezing long-dead bodies at the behest of relatives vindicates what
I been saying for years about this practice; that it is biologically
indefensible and severely undermines the image of cryonics and our
efforts to make cryonics medically credible. This little exchange
is the most powerful weapon yet that I can use against the
freeze-anything-that-doesn't-move contingent in cryonics.
HOWEVER, there remains the issue of your original post:
>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?
Let me now present two possible versions of the truth
(hint: only one of them is the real truth):
1) CryoCare has a glossy brochure with the following text:
"Have you been thinking about cryonics for a loved one,
but they are already dead and buried? Don't despair.
Cryonics can help. Future technology may actually be
able to revive them! Call CryoCare for more information
about disinterment and cryopreservation."
2) CryoCare's member newsletter (a public domain document)
contains a policy discussion of why CryoCare recently
*refused* an unsolicited request to freeze a disinterred
body. Part of the discussion is a recapitulation of standard
arguments floating around the cryonics community for
taking such cases; arguments which do not carry the day.
Now, hands up everyone who after reading John's post formed a
mental image of (1)? Who would have guessed that (2) was the truth?
Now the tough question: Which mental picture did John WANT you to form
when he made his post?
Misleading nature of John's post aside, a valid question
has been asked: Why does a suggestion that chemical fixation ("embalming")
might be reversible appear ANYWHERE in cryonics literature? It
turns out that this suggestion did not originate with cryonicists
at all. It appears, scattered, in many places outside of cryonics.
For example, in 1974 Carl Sagan (who is not a cryonicist) wrote a
book called "Broca's Brain." In it you will find a florid and
enthusiastic discussion by Sagan about why he believes it may one day be
possible for "future neurologists" to recreate the mind of a dead
19th century neurologist, Paul Broca, because Dr. Broca's formalin-
fixed brain is sitting in a jar in a museum somewhere.
So, John, why don't you go and write Sagan and his publishers
vilifying them for their irresponsible advertising giving false
hope to grieving families whose loved ones have been embalmed?
After all, Sagan's book is in public libraries. Obviously the
book is aimed at grieving families. What's that, you say?
Sagan is not in the business of freezing embalmed bodies for
future revival? Well, NEITHER IS CRYOCARE.
>> The simple fact is that CryoCare does not want customers.
>Bullshit.
>You commit the same offence as that for which you criticise the
>undertakers. Call them members, customers, punters, marks - call them
>what you will. They pay you money in the belief that they may be frozen
>and then possibly thawed.
This is not a matter of semantics. You obviously did not
understand a word I said. Let's call everyone, then, who puts money
into cryonics "punters". There are two classes of punters. There
are young, healthy punters who pay dues and help support research
into cryonics so it is a decent technology by the time they need
it years in the future. Then there are punters who want to pay
me money to freeze their dead loved ones with the primitive technology
that is available today. I tell such punters to go elsewhere.
Have I made myself clear?
>> 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.
>But according to you, the individual case is supposed to be
>self-financing n'est ce pas?
Having money to pay for liquid nitrogen bills does not compensate
me for the headache of having to worry about these people. And if
I did draw such monetary compensation, I would be pilloried by people
like you for doing it. Then again, what am I talking about? I'm
pilloried by you anyway (as in your "watch your income" jab earlier)
so what does it matter? Perhaps I should start dipping in the till.
I can't goddamn win either way.
***************************************************************************
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=5911