X-Message-Number: 950
Date: 03 Jul 92 20:00:25 EDT
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: CRYONET

Recently (within the past week) something happened that 
seems, at first glance, to support the case of those people 
who want Alcor to be able to expell members who "sabotage" 
the organization. 
 
As I understand it, the event was as follows: A man whom I 
will refer to as Don contacted the national news media, gave 
them the name of an Alcor patient who was in critical 
condition, and encouraged journalists to go and interview the 
patient. Don acted without checking with Alcor, and without 
asking the patient. 
 
At best, this was presumptuous. At worst, it might have 
endangered the patient's chances of being suspended. The 
patient's family was (is) hostile to cryonics. They were 
already unhappy about the idea of the patient being 
suspended. Cryonics has a long history of problems caused by 
unsympathetic families, as anyone acquainted with the field 
should know. While the family may not have any legal right to 
interfere, in practice, there are other ways of being 
obstructive. 
 
Also, as a result of the media attention, the hospital 
reversed its policy of full cooperation. 
 
So: should Don be expelled from Alcor? Some people might 
think so. But in his case, it isn't possible. Why not? 
Because he isn't a member!  
 
Here, then, is the real problem. Any fool can cause trouble 
in cryonics, whether he is a member of Alcor, or Trans Time, 
or the Cryonics Institute, or all three, or none of the 
above. The threat of expulsion is meaningless; in fact, if 
someone WAS ever expelled, it would probably make him even 
MORE likely to cause trouble. 
 
The only answer (it seems to me) is to exercise extreme 
caution when discussing cryonics news with anyone who has a 
history of hasty or unpredictable behavior. Don was acting 
with good intentions (he felt that the publicity value was of 
overriding importance and that Alcor was guilty of 
squandering an opportunity for national exposure). Don is 
well-liked by some, and I've been friendly with him myself in 
the past. But anyone should have known not to tell him the 
name and location of a member in critical condition who had 
reason to prefer confidentiality. 
 
Does anyone have a suggestion (other than "exercise extreme 
caution," which sounds a bit lame) for avoiding potentially 
serious events like this in future? Clearly, expulsion isn't 
going to work. 
 
--Charles Platt 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=950