X-Message-Number: 872 From: Kevin Q. Brown Subject: Re: Motivation for Reanimation Date: 2 Jun 1992 The sci.med cryonics discussion sparked by Keith Henson's early May informal query about forming a sci.med.cryonics news group has finally waned considerably, but today's batch (message #0011.20) had an interesting message somewhat related to the current "Motivation For Reanimation" thread in this mailing list. I have appended that sci.med message below. Kevin Q. Brown UUCP ...att!whscad1!kqb INTERNET COMPUSERVE >INTERNET: FYI: Message #0011, which gathers all the sci.med cryonics messages since early May, has now grown to over 500K bytes! ----- > From: (Steven J. Edwards) > Newsgroups: sci.med > Subject: Cryopreserved human embryos in the news > Date: 2 Jun 92 14:42:26 GMT According to a public radio report yesterday, the State of Tennessee Supreme Court recently ruled on a controversial case involving a set of cryopreserved human embryos. The embryos in question are the result of a number of successful in vitro fertalizations of a couple who are now separated/divorced. The mother sued to allow a thawing of at least one embryo and to have it brought to term (using the mother as the carrier, I guess). The father opposed this as he no longer wanted to be held financially responsible for the upbringing of the child as would otherwise be the case for parents under Tennessee law. The court ruled that the father could not be held liable for support. The report did not go into detail, but I assumed that it did not forbid the revival of the embryos; it just said that the mother could not sue for child support. A possible conclusion is that a frozen embryo just doesn't have the same rights (potential for rights?) as an in vivo embryo. Another case a few years ago in Australia also concerned several frozen embryos of a wealthy couple that later died in an accident leaving the (potential?) offspring behind. After a long legal battle, the breathing, non offspring relatives of the deceased couple successfully convinced the courts that they, and not the more closely related embryos, were the legal inheritors of the substantial estate. It seems that cryopreservation of adults will face legal obstacles even after the medical difficulties are solved. (If they ever are.) [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.] == Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. == == (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A == == Billerica, MA 01821 USA == "That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson ----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=872