X-Message-Number: 1673 Date: 24 Jan 93 07:43:15 EST From: Garret Smyth <> Subject: Cryonics Act Given the views of the current UK Government (if they've had any since the passing of our gloriuos Thatch) I would have thought the minimum of legislation possible would be favoured. Self-regulation might be considered, or some semi-statutory arrangement. Current cryonics organisers would certainly be most in favour of as little government intervention as possible. The main thing would be to strengthen the rights of those in suspension. There are laws in place to deal with those who can't look after themselves, (there's a special court I believe, who's name I forget, but it deals with powers of attourney etc) but currently being defined as dead, suspendees don't qualify. If there were a legal third state, between life and death a lot of already existing laws would automatically apply. The thing that worries me most is the *quality* of the suspension I recieve. Part of this is a logistic problem (and therefore down to me) but part of it is because I have to wait for the ravages of disease (ro a coroner) to law waste my mind before I am legally in a position to be suspended. And even then people might interfere. Re: regulating the trust fund situation. The Maxwell case shows that what you are worried about is possible. On the other hand insurance companies and pension funds have survived for hundreds of years (I have a policy with one that I think started in the 1750's and in Italy a few months ago I used my bank card to get some money out of a machine belonging to a bank that started in 1472) so widescale fraud need not be a problem. I think that it's the public accounting practices of the companies that makes funny business difficult. Maxwell had the advantage of not having to answer to anyone. Again, couldn't cryonics slip in with current legislation? Garret Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1673