X-Message-Number: 1699 From: Subject: CRYONICS Custody of Alcor Patients Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 13:29:28 PST From: Mike Perry Date: 30 Jan. 1993 > Subject: Custody of Alcor Patients Disclaimer: I am the Alcor patient caretaker, and also edit a column in *Cryonics* magazine devoted to cryonics history. The following are my opinions, not an official statement of policies for the Alcor Foundation. Recently the issue has come up of the possibility of an attempt being made, by relatives of certain Alcor patients, to acquire "custody" of those patients, presumably for reasons that said relatives are unhappy with the way these patients are currently cared for by Alcor, and they would wish to provide better care. (Note: I am not including here any cases in which relatives are seeking to remove a patient from suspension, only those in which there is ostensibly continuing interest on the part of the relatives to maintain the suspensions in question.) Reasons for the unhappiness include the fact that Alcor's facility is in an earthquake zone, and is small (given the current patient population of 15 neuros and 10 whole bodies), cramped and not very pleasing aesthetically. One set of wealthy relatives is looking into the possibility of constructing their own facility, and another wealthy individual who has a relative in suspension is said, perhaps, also to be interested in this possibility. At this stage it is not entirely clear what is being planned by these individuals. However, I feel it appropriate to comment in view of other comments that have been made, and also because we need to be thinking about certain potentially serious problems well in advance of their occurrence. Take the following then, as a worst-case scenario. In particular, *I am not offering it as a reflection against any particular individuals* but to address a difficulty that *could* arise, and one we need to be prepared for. The issue at stake concerns what action Alcor should take if someone wishes to acquire "custody" of a patient and store them in a facility different from Alcor's current facility. I have put "custody" in quotation marks because it can be understood in different senses. There is physical custody, for example, and also legal custody. I think these two very different concepts have often been confused. It has sometimes been stated (by Keith Henson for example) that if better facilities were available for one or more patients, it would not be unreasonable to move those patients there. This would, I think, be reasonable *under certain circumstances*, specifically, if Alcor personnel were available at the new site to insure and verify continuing, adequate standards of care, and if *legal custody of the patients still resided with Alcor*. I would be adamantly opposed, however, to a transfer of legal custody of any patients, except under certain dire or extraordinary circumstances. One such circumstance would be if it was necessary to save a suspension. Another would be if (and this was recently suggested as a possibility) a decision had been made to disband Alcor in favor of another organization, assuming such course seemed justified. In the latter case, *all* the patients would be transferred, presumably to a new organization that adhered to Alcor's currently high principles of commitment to patient care. Barring such possibilities, though, I feel it is morally imperative to affirm *our* continuing commitment to patient care. *We must not surrender legal custody of a patient to anybody* no matter how hard they might be willing to fight for a patient, no matter what they might claim to offer in the way of equal or better facilities, and no matter how much struggle and resources on our part would be required to defeat them. A moment's reflection will, I think, show good reasons for taking this stance. Suppose, for instance, that some individual with considerable resources wished to remove some patient from the legal custody of Alcor, and was willing to go to great lengths to do so. This would be an action that would put a great strain on Alcor (assuming it chose to fight it out, as I am arguing it should), and would thereby put other patients in danger, as well as endangering the chances of members not yet in suspension. A person willing to attack Alcor in this way *would thus have very suspect motives* from a cryonics standpoint, *and this would be all the more reason not to give in to them*. In the early days of cryonics, relatives often assumed the burden of maintaining patients in suspension. This seemed a good policy at first: the relatives had a direct, personal interest in maintaining the suspension, and funds were short. As time went by, though, the error of this policy became all too apparent. Of the nearly 20 patients suspended prior to 1974, all to my knowledge were initially maintained by relatives. *Only one of those patients is still in suspension today, and that patient is not being cared for by relatives.* Most of the suspensions, in fact, ended within about five years. By comparison, most of the 50 or so individuals suspended from 1974 on were never in the care of relatives, *and most of those individuals are still in suspension today.* It's true that many of the relatives in question were not wealthy and were not interested in cryonic suspension themselves, unlike the more recent cases involving Alcor patients. However, the dismal record of patient loss does raise a question of whether any relative would be as good a prospect for arranging decades or more of continuing care, even for a loved one, as an organization committed to keeping its patients in suspension, as Alcor currently is. *I feel that an organization willing to fight for **all** its patients as I have suggested is a better longterm prospect than any individual who would show a special interest in **some** patient or patients but not others.* So to reiterate, I have considered a worst-case scenario involving ostensibly well-intended efforts by relatives to provide better care for an Alcor patient by removing that patient from Alcor's legal custody. I have also avoided naming any actual relatives of patients since it is not clear at this point that such plans are being implemented or seriously contemplated by such individuals. Hopefully matters will not come down to this. It is generally agreed that Alcor needs a new facility for *all* of its patients. There is a possibility that efforts of some relatives could result in better storage for all. I hope this happens, and I hope that the high standards of Alcor can remain intact in the process. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1699