X-Message-Number: 1529
Date: 01 Jan 93 15:59:21 EST
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: CRYONICS:  Replies To Scott Herman And Thomas Donaldson


-------- Forwarded Message --------

FROM:    Saul Kent, 71043,1120
TO:      CRYONET, INTERNET:
DATE:    12/08/92 at 18:35

SUBJECT: CRYONICS:  Replies To Scott Herman And Thomas Donaldson

To Scott Herman:

I appreciate your desire to get my side of "the story", but I'm not
about to answer hostile, accusatory questions in a public forum from
someone I've never spoken to who knows nothing about the matters he is
questioning me about.

I'd be happy to discuss with you in private anything you'd like to know
about any aspect of cryonics history in which I was involved.  If you'd
like to discuss these matters with me, please give me a call and we'll
set up a meeting. (You can get my phone number from Alcor.)

Saul Kent


To Thomas Donaldson, re splitting Alcor:

You argue that "the major problem with an organization that relies on
people close to its patients is that those people too, will eventually
also be suspended....(and that) In the end...most suspension patients
won't have anyone around...WHO ACTUALLY KNEW THEM AS PEOPLE."

The major problem I'm concerned with is that the majority of today's
Alcor members never knew any of our current patients, and that some of
those I've spoken to don't seem to be particularly concerned about
them.  Whatever the future may hold, I'd feel better if the patients
were being cared for--right now--solely by suspension members dedicated
to their best interests.

You say that "...at first there was no sign of any threat to Dora Kent."
I disagree.  The sign that there was a threat to Dora Kent was the fact
that it was a Coroner's case and I can assure you, we all felt that the
threat was very real.

You say that I contend "...it will be clear when to transfer patients to
the storage organization" and then argue that "...it won't, in practice,
be at all clear..."

What I said was that, in many cases, we should be able to identify
potentially hostile relatives quickly, while in some cases it will be
impossible to do so.  I agree that, in high-risk cases, it will be
difficult to determine when to transfer the patient to the suspension
organization.  My contention, however, is that, all things considered,
the risk posed to suspended patients by new suspensions will be lower
if there are two separate organizations.

You argue that taking legal steps to protect the patients may not
"really remove any risks" because "anyone who wants to bring down
cryonics will hardly care about any legal distinction between
organizations."

I disagree.  In my experience, legal (and other) barriers are highly
effective in protecting an organization from attack.  Although, anyone
who "really wants to bring down cryonics" may not care about such legal
barriers, they will still have to surmount them.

I agree that the question of who should serve on the Alcor Board is a
"constitutional issue", and that we should be thinking about it as
such.  However, my arguments in favor of a separate patient care
organization should be considered separately from any arguments
concerning who should be on the board, or how the board should be
elected.

You mention that a separate patient care organization would entail
additional costs.  I agree.  The loss of efficiency in having two
organizations rather than one is, I believe, the strongest argument
against splitting Alcor at this time.

In your note to Steve Harris, you say, "...we have no need for Alcor
itself to become associated with any battles against the FDA.  I agree.
I've never proposed that Alcor enter the fight against the FDA and I
would strongly oppose any suggestion that Alcor should do so.

Saul Kent

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1529