X-Message-Number: 10787 From: "Trygve B. Bauge" <> Subject: What are the rights of grown children when in conflict with remaining parent over cryonic storage of the other parent? Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 13:10:10 +0100 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BE1099.4613DC60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> The 32 year old in Mandal did not prevail. Her uncle became violent >> against her, >Is that not against the law in Norway as it is in most other places? Yes, and I did suggest to her that she contact a lawyer, so to find out what rights she has. In particular it would have been of value to find out what rights an adult has when in a conflict with one surviving parent over how to dispose of the other newely diseased parent. I even contacted a news paper that was willing to put her in touch with a legal scholar at the University here in Oslo. However, I don't know yet if she has done so. Maybe someone else here on cryonet knows what the laws are in other parts of the world? If the remaining spouse and one or more adult children, fight over whether or not to freeze the diseased parent, or cell samples of the latter, who then decides and how? I can see several approaches: If the dead parent left a will that was in favour of or against cryonics then that would pretty much answer the question. In lieu of a will, an expressed interest one way or the other might hold up, if the other parties don't try to fight this in court. If the diseased has not expressed itself one way or the other, it might be that the remaining spouse is the one that has the power to decide. On the other hand the adult kid could make the argument that he or she was closer to the dead parent, or that the remaining parent is unfit to make the decission. (Of course the other part might make the same argument, claiming that the one in favour of cryonics is unfit......) Either way, any child that is not disinherited by the dead parent, would certainly have a right to inherit the latter, and an argument could be made that one also has the right to at least half the body now, and the rest of the body once the other parent passes away as well, (which might at least give one a chance to take and store some cell samples or even the brain.) Sometimes some or all inheritance is not paid out until the remaining spouse dies as well, but letting the remaining spouse block even the preservation of cell samples seems kind of harse. Certainly there must be lots of conflicts that other cryonisists have come across over the years. How were these conflicts decided? Would anyone care to enlighten me and the other readers? I know of my grand father's case. In that situation his wife had already preceded him in death, and he had only one child: my mother. Once she agreed to have him frozen, no other relative could stop it, my sister included. Ps. If we ever write a law regarding cryonics, maybe the text could be that in any conflict over how to dispose of a dead parent, and in lack of a clear will, the spouse or child that is most inclined to and suited to cryonically preserve the dead parent for future revival will get to take possession of the dead body? Of course one still have the conflict when several relatives battle over what cryonic company to use. But then one could still revert to the older rule that the nearest kind e.g. the spouse, gets priority, and when there is no remaining spouse, then the oldest grown kid gets to make the decission etc. Of couse a predeath contract with a cryonic company would cut through all the above problems. However, we would still need a way to solve the above problems too, as long as people keep postponing signing up their relatives until the latter are unable to do so on their own. No doubt a lot of the post mortem sign up attempts and conflicts are due to the relative that really wants cryonics, not being ready to or not daring to take up or bring the topic to a decission at an earlier point. However some deaths occure untimely and before one expected, and one might not have gotten around to do the sign up, of someone who otherwise would have agreed. Either way, I think we should be open for post mortem signups, and for supporting the part that wants a cryonic suspension, in the latter's battle with others that don't want such. Life-Extension Systems, Norwegian Icebathing Association & Action 88. For a VHS video presentation of my work, send $50 to Trygve B.Bauge c/o Aksjon 88, P.o.b.59 Hovseter,0705 Oslo,Norway Ph 47-2214-8078 E-mail: http://www.powertech.no/~trygveb/ [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] ------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BE1099.4613DC60 Content-Type: text/html; Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10787