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