X-Message-Number: 10146
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:48:45 -0400
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #10135 Re: Dying of Old Age
References: <>

> Message #10135
> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:36:34 +0100
> From:  (John de Rivaz)
> Subject: Re: Dying of Old Age
> 
> In article: <> Charles Platt writes:
> > On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 Bob Ettinger wrote:
> (del)
> > > To illustrate this point, I often cite a letter to Ann Landers, in which
> > > a woman complained that her husband wanted sex and she didn't. Her
> > > problem, as she saw it, was how to get her husband to leave her in
> > > peace. Her real problem, of course, was how to learn how to enjoy sex
> > > in a normal manner, or to cure whatever caused her negative feelings.
> >
> > If she didn't want to have sex, she has every right not to have sex
> > (although marriage statutes may dictate otherwise).
> 
> A difficult point.

I don't see this as a difficult point at all. If the marriage statutes
dictate that sexual cooperation is mandatory in marriage and someone
chooses to get *legally* married, then s/he is also electing to be
contractually bound to those marriage statutes. S/he is dishonest and
culpable if s/he changes his/her mind afterwards. This says nothing
about whether a "loving" partner would choose to enforce such a
contractual obligation, only what are his/her *rights*.
 
> Suppose someone doesn't want to take up hang gliding or bungee jumping, and
> those around them all love it - are they ethically correct if they try and
> force the unwilling person "just to try it once?" Suppose the activity is
> more innoccuous, eg golf?

This one is also very clear. If by "force" you mean by physical force,
then the answer is a resounding no, since the only legitimate use of
physical force is in self defense against the initiation of such force
by another (or the clear *intent* to initiate it). If you mean by
"persuasion" (sometimes very erroneously and conceptually underminingly
called "psychological force"), then, by right of free association and
free speech, the answer is very clearly yes. The one who is being
"persuaded at" has an equal right to disassociate him/her self from the
others and avoid such persuasion. This question has nothing to do with
"ethics"! It has only and everything to do with their friends evaluation
of the worth of the continued friendship in relation to that of the
particular activity which is under consideration. 

> Suppose someone does not want to eat (because of some medical condition,
> treatable without after effects, makes eating painful or whatever) Should
> they be forced to have treatment "for their own good"? Would they thank the
> medical staff once they are cured?

Again, the answer to such questions is very clear to me. You *can* often
(not that you have the *right* to) force (physical force) people to do
something, but you must also be willing to accept the consequences of
your action. If you are certain that the person will afterwards thank
you for your action then you are wise to go ahead. However, you are
*always* taking the chance that you are violating the person's true
wishes and that he will legitimately want restitution afterwards which,
ethically, you must be prepared to pay. This same precaution applies to
"persuading" someone against their "true" wishes (they may resent it),
however, in the case of persuasion, the person made a volitional choice
and therefore has no right to get restitution.
 
> At the moment most people would see cryopreservation as being similar to the
> activities example, whereas most cryonicists see it as being similar to the
> eating disorder example.

This type of question has been discussed many times before among
cryonicists in the context of mental illnesses including depression and
suicide (often incorrectly, IMO). Again, it is not so much a matter of
what is *right or wrong* as it is a matter of being responsible for ones
actions, and that means being responsible to bear any punishment and/or
financial burden which are reasonably the result of those actions. For
this reason, there is no need to make any distinction between what
cryonicists think and what others think.

-- Paul --

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10146