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
                              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