X-Message-Number: 1203
From: 
Subject: Re: cryonics:
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 10:34:04 PDT

 writes:

>What reports?  What happened?

[deleted]

>Arrrrrrgh!  Everyone is trying to control the
>audience and no one is trying to communicate with them.

>Tim Freeman (who was not there (where?))

Sorry, Tim.  The road to hell is paved . . . .  Ralph wrote up the 
minutes and I know he intended to post them here.  Problem is, he and 
Tanya had to go off on a reconnaissance mission (not a standby) and 
they did not get posted.  I will ask Hugh to locate them if he can and 
perhaps the minutes will be in this mailblast.  If not, next Monday. 

Perry Metzger writes:

>With properly structured fees, we can make money off of suspensions.
>Given a steady stream of suspensions, we can fund day to day
>operations as easily as we could off of dues -- its just a question of
>getting enough that the law of large numbers takes over and good
>estimates can be done of the load. It may also be argued that our fees
>are not such that we make enough money off of suspensions to pay for
>staff time devoted; if this is the case, then we need to restructure
>the fees, rather than to discourage people from saving their lives.

You are right--though it looks to me like a number of years will pass 
before we get to the level where the suspension load is fairly steady. 
The problem right now is that restructuring the fees (to the level 
where we could get by without volunteers) *would* "discourage people 
from saving their lives."  What I feel we need (and have been devoting 
all the time I can when not distracted by politics) is a major effort 
in cost reduction. If we cannot achieve a major reduction in the labor 
and other costs involved in suspending people, professional staff cost 
will either break Alcor or drive the cost of suspension so high that 
many of us cannot afford it.  Of all the problems facing Alcor, this 
may be the most important. 

David Brandt-Erichsen <> wrote:

>Keith, you have referred to an allocated amount in the suspension 
>funding for standby/transport, lumping together these two 
>functions.  The Alcor Cryonic Suspension Agreement, however, 
>allocates $3,000 of the suspension funding for transport and 
>associated functions, but NOTHING for standby.  This is to be 
>handled by separate contract, according to the Agreement.  As 
>far as I know, no standard contract for this has yet been 
>produced (if it has, it has certainly not been made available to 
>members).  This is something that Alcor has needed to do for 
>years, and I am not so much complaining about that (I know all 
>about limited resources and other priorities), but I would 
>appreciate any clarification you or anyone else in Alcor could 
>give on how this is currently being handled. 
 
In two words, not well.  The last two cases are a study in contrast. 
We went to Ft. Collins and transported a patient without even checking 
into a motel.  Cost came in close to budget.  We expected to do the 
same in Boston.  It did not work out that way--though I cannot find 
any fault in the decisions made by those involved *at the time, with 
the information they had*.  Studying the details of this case will not 
help.  We need fundamental policy changes--and other than the one I 
posted on bringing family up to speed, I don't have a clue as to what 
they should be.  This is a painful subject, because we want to do the 
best we can for the patient, but we can't hurt Alcor in the process.  
It also is a strong function of distance.  Once there, we are reluctant 
to turn around and go home if the patient gets out of bed for a few 
minutes.  Should we just raise the cost of all suspensions and go on 
transports which may turn into standbys as we feel it is needed? 

Keith Henson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1203