X-Message-Number: 778 From: Subject: For Mailblast Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 01:42:49 PDT PILGERAM CASE Depending on your impressions, this case, in which an Alcor patient, Cynthia Pilgeram, had previously expressed a wish for "Christian burial" rather than cremation or freezing, is either (1) a clearcut example of someone explicitly rejecting cryonic suspension and expressing a wish for an alternative, or (2) not the above. I have studied it and had a chance to talk to several of those more involved than myself, including her husband. I don't feel it is a clearcut case of where someone is trying to exercise the right to (from our point of view) self-destruct, thus, it is "not the above". Instead there is reasonable doubt that, at the time of her death, Mrs. Pilgeram wanted to contravene the wishes of her husband (who wanted and arranged for her freezing) and instead wanted to be buried. Below are some thoughts on why I feel Mrs. Pilgeram should stay in suspension, where I have tried to adhere to what might be considered significant by a court composed of non-cryonicists, who unlike us would not see this as a life-and-death issue. Recently, as most readers are probably aware, a court in Santa Barbara decided Mrs. Pilgeram should have her burial, i.e., be removed from cryonic suspension. However, no actual order to this effect has been issued by the court, and the case will probably be appealed by her husband, which will probably take on the order of a year, at least. ********************************************** REASONS WHY CYNTHIA PILGERAM SHOULD REMAIN IN CRYONIC SUSPENSION RATHER THAN BE BURIED 1. Unlike burial, cryonic suspension is conservative. It is possible at any time to commit a body in cryonic suspension to burial, whereas it is not possible, once a body has been thawed and buried, to restore its state of preservation under cryonic suspension. 2. Reasonable doubt exists that Cynthia Pilgeram was opposed to her cryonic suspension at or shortly before the time of her death. While she may not have been enthusiastic, she seems to have been willing to accede to the wishes of her husband in having her frozen. The testimony does not indicate any strong wish for burial or any strong desire to contravene the wishes of her husband in the last year of her life. The will dated March 21, 1986, which leaves the bulk of the estate of Cynthia Pilgeram to her sister, Sharon Fields, and which stipulates that Cynthia wanted ``Christian burial,'' was invalidated by later changes to the estate to which Cynthia gave written approval. Cynthia must have been aware that the will was no longer valid, yet made no effort to execute another document stating she wished to be buried or did not wish to be frozen. 3. To remove Cynthia from cryonic suspension will have a devastating effect on her husband, Laurence Pilgeram, a Ph.D. biochemist who views cryonic suspension as a plausible means of extending the life of his wife. To maintain Cynthia in cryonic suspension, despite the objections of certain relatives, offers no similar devastating prospect because the option of burial is open at any time and because there is no compromise of the chances, great or small, of extending her life. 4. Cryonic suspension offers the possibility, through means as yet undeveloped but related to those that would be required for reanimation, of ascertaining the state of mind and the true wishes of the decedent. This would involve recovery and analysis of memory information in the brain. Such information would be irretrievably lost through burial. 5. It has not been shown or ascertained in what way cryonic suspension would be objectionable from the standpoint of Cynthia's religious background or beliefs. Cryonic suspension does not appear to be incompatible with Christianity nor with appropriate services that might be performed on behalf of the decedent. ************************************************************ Persons interested in saving Cynthia might help with opinions expressed, or possibly eventually, financial contributions for attorney's fees, etc. (nothing definite re the latter as yet however). Readers' opinions appreciated, but please send them directly (by e-mail or telephone) to Mike Perry rather than to the cryonics mailing list. Mike Perry, 714-736-1703 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=778