X-Message-Number: 1488
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:05:24 EST
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: CRYONICS:  Reply to McCrary, Herman, and Donaldson

I've been in Florida for the past week and have been unable to reply to
any postings on Cryonet.  What follows are my replies to recent
postings by Lola McCrary, Scott Herman, and Thomas Donaldson.

To Lola McCrary: 

In your posting on Cryonet last week, you accused me of having a
"double standard" in calling for Keith Henson to resign from the Alcor
Board because of his criticism of President-Elect Steve Bridge after
defending Brenda Peters when she criticized Alcor's outgoing President
Carlos Mondragon earlier in the year.

In my opinion, they were two different cases.  Brenda's criticism of
Carlos was based upon Carlos' actions as President and CEO of Alcor. 
The reason I didn't criticize Brenda about her criticism of Carlos was
because I agreed with most of what she said about his performance as
Alcor's President.

I have no problem with Keith (or any other Board member) criticizing
Steve about his performance as Alcor President and CEO, but I think it
would be appropriate to wait until Steve actually takes office before
staring to do so.  As I said in my open letter to the Alcor Board, I
strongly supported Carlos for four years before I reluctantly came to
the conclusion that it might be desirable to replace him as President
of Alcor.

In my opinion, Keith's letter was not only prematurely critical of
Steve, but also included thinly-veiled threats against others in a
manner which I believe to be inappropriate for a member of the Board.

Your suggestion that I might be going to jail, presumably because of my
fight against the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) introduced an
extremely complex issue into the discussion without any explanation.  

My only concern is that your mention of the possibility of my going to
jail could be construed as suggesting that I might be guilty of some
crime, which I am not.


To Scott Herman:

I'm sorry you think I wasn't interested in speaking with you when I saw
you at Alcor on several occasions, but we were never introduced and I
was only there a short time.  I've always been appreciative of Alcor
members who volunteer their time to help the organization.  I've been
told that your contributions were quite valuable and so I'd like to
take this occasion to, belatedly, express my appreciation for your
efforts in helping Alcor.  I hope you will consider doing so again.


To Thomas Donaldson:

On Dec. 12 (# 1438), Thomas Donaldson posted his reply to my memo of
arguments in favor of creating a separate patient-care organization
which I had mailed to him.  I have not posted this 11-page memo on
cryonet because of its length, but will instead respond to his reply to
my memo.  If any cryonetters wish me to post my 11-page memo, I will do
so.

I believe (and have argued) that a separate patient-care organization
would be less vulnerable to legal and government attack than an
organization which also does cryonic suspensions.  Thomas disagrees with
my assessment.  He argues that "...up to now the only lawsuits
INDIVIDUAL cryonic societies have faced (and ALCOR potentially faces are
those from disgruntled relatives who want the suspension funda BACK.
 If different organizations had dealt with storage and suspension, BOTH
would have been attacked: and if these relatives act solely for the
money involved they would first go after the storage organization, where
most of the money lies.  The funds devoted to the suspension operation,
unless augmented by punitive damages, would barely pay the cost of
recovering them."

Thomas is right about a separate storage organization not being
protection against lawsuits filed after the legal responsibility and the
funds for long-term patient care have been transfered to the storage
organization.  The only way that liability could be reduced would be to
postpone transfering the legal responsibility and funds for long-term
patient care to the storage organization in high-risk cases, until the
risk is reduced or eliminated.  In some cases, we should be able to
identify potentially hostile relatives prior to the patient being placed
into suspension.  In other cases, we should be able to identify
potentially hostile relatives shortly after the patient has been
suspended.  In still other cases, it may be impossible to identify a
hostile relative until long after the suspension has taken place.  The
extent to which we can deal with the concerns of hostile relatives
before transfering the legal responsibility and funds for patient care
to the storage organization will determine the extent to which we can
protect existing patients from the liabilities of newly suspended
patients.

Thomas then goes on to argue that "...separation of storage and
suspension would not have helped the kind of problems Alcor faced with
Dora Kent.  At first Alcor's officers, following procedures they had
followed repeatedly in the past, believed that everything was in good
order.  Dora would soon be encapsulated in a permanent location.  And,
in fact, the initial contacts between Alcor and the Riverside Coroner
were, if anything, actually friendly.  If we had had two organizations
rather than one, the Coroner would have tried to attack the STORAGE
organization and threatened, as he did, to impound all the patients, not
just Dora Kent."

I disagree.  We knew very early on in the Dora Kent case that it was
going to be a Coroner's case.  We did not believe everything was in
"good order" and we were very concerned about the possible consequences
of the Coroner's actions.  Moreover, the early contacts between Alcor
personnel and the Coroner were never "friendly"; they were at best
cordial.  There's no doubt in my mind that, if we had had a separate
patient care organization during the Dora Kent crisis, we would not have
tranfered the legal responsibility and funds for her long-term care to
that organization until the risk to Dora had ended.

The only reason the Coroner threatened the other patients in the Dora
Kent case was because they couldn't get their hands on Dora and were
tyring to get the Alcor staff to tell them where she was.  If the other
patients had been in a separate facility owned and managed by people
other than Alcor's leaders, the Coroner would have been, in my opinion,
less likely to threaten Alcor staff members with the destruction of the
other patients.  And, if the patients had been stored in any county
other than Riverside County, the Coroner would have had no jurisdiction
over them.

I agree with Thomas that having a separate patient-care organization
would not have helped us in our battle with the California Health
Department.

Thomas argues that "...a suspension fund should NOT be thought of purely
as a sum of money to be put out in some secure investment....The problem
with that approach (he argues) is that, especially now, it's quite easy
to imagine circumstances in which a refusal to spend some part of the
principal would be the height of folly.  What if Alcor people learned of
an imminent raid by government agents to sequester all the patients?  If
extra money must be spent to turn all patients into neuropreservation
patients and move them elsewhere at short notice, it would be well
spend."

I agree.  The purpose in caring for suspended patients in a separate
patient care organization is not to place any restrictions on the
expenditure of patient-care money except that it be in the best
interests of the patients.  In a separate organization devoted strictly
to patient care, the Directors of the organizaiton would, in my opinion,
be more likely to adhere to that basic principle.

Thomas says that "History is full of flux and change.  If we rely on one
country or one law, in the long term THAT RELIANCE WILL PROVE WRONG. 
That is why the continued existence of an organization devoted to
suspension patients becomes so important."

I agree, except that I believe that an organization devoted solely to
patient care would provide better protection than an all-purpose
cryonics organization.  Right now, Alcor is located in one county within
the borders of one country (the United States).  Its burden is to serve
the needs of its living members as well as its members in suspension.  I
think there are inherent conflicts of interest between these two
burdens, and would prefer to see patients cared for in an organization
without these conflicts of interest.

Thomas says that "The best protection consists of the memebrs of the
cryonics society itself, who will want to see your suspension through to
a successful revival because they too believe that someday they will be
suspended and face the same problem."

I agree with Thomas, once again, except that I would like to rely
primarily upon members who want to be suspended themselves, but who also
have a strong personal bond with the existing patients, such as members
who already have loved ones in suspension.  I've found that members who
never knew any of the patients in suspension, which includes the
majority of Alcor members, tend to be relatively unconcerned about
them, and sometimes even forget they exist.

Thomas misrepresents me when he says that "Saul feels that the Board of
Alcor may not be trustworthy, but that...the Board of a storage society
WILL be trustworthy..."  

That's not so.  The issue of the trustworthiness of the Board is not
directly relevant to my arguments in favor of a separate patient-care
organization.  In fact, I've come to the tentative conclusion that, it
would be desirable to have a separate patient-care organization even if
Alcor's management was beyond reproach.

I thank Thomas for his thoughtrful ideas and arguments and hope he will
continue to offer his thoughts on the subject.

Saul Kent

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1488