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