X-Message-Number: 9917
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 09:51:19 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #9914 - #9916

Hi Bob!

In a sense your explanation points in the right direction, but it
needs more. Basically a legislator wants to get elected. He will do
whatever necessary to do so. My problem with that explanation is that
not every legislator has the opponents of euthanasia voting for him
in the first place, so that not every legislator will be affected
by them. Sure, some will.

We are seeing a very strong swing AGAINST euthanasia at the same
time as most of the population is swinging TOWARDS euthanasia. I'd be
surprised if all of those legislators taking stands against it are
every one of them potentially beholden to the "anti"s. Possibly it
is also a generational thing, too, but I doubt that is a good
explanation either. 

I was actually hoping for a much more detailed explanation. Do those
legislators who have NOT swung against euthanasia come from particular
areas where the anti people are relatively sparse? What states are
the strongest anti, and what are the least? I note the statement of
at least one Oregon legislator to the effect that he was agin it
but the will of the people of Oregon should not be frustrated by
Federal action.

Unfortunately, the present law requires autopsy afterwards, so
it's useless for cryonics. But it may be a start. If all the antis
can be defeated, the day will come when someone opposed to autopsy
will ask for it, and that particular provision will be tested.
Besides, what one state can do others can do too.

If we look at this with the eye of someone 100 or 200 years from
now, it all looks rather silly. Here we have people declaiming about
the value of life, and not one of them has arranged for their
cryonic suspension. Really valuable, this life.

			Best and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9917