X-Message-Number: 1785 From: Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Wells, Stone Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 22:47:08 PST In msg #1762 Clarissa Wells writes: >Tucked away in an obscure corner of the most recent Cryonics magazine >I found mention that at a recent business meeting, Keith Henson >poroposed that if a member gives up his/her suspension membership, the >member would not be allowed to re-join Alcor without being approved by >a majority of the board. Why would Mr. Henson propose this measure? >Perhaps because Mike Darwin resigned from Alcor, and made some harsh >statements, and Mr. Henson would like to block him from re-joining in >the future? The entire meeting is on tape, so I might get it and transcribe the debate around this issue. However, you need a little background to understand why some other board members and I are concerned. A case can be made that one of the "former members" cost Alcor $500k or more. This same person has been overheard in recent months telling people how they can be frozen by Alcor *without* becoming a member--which, if they believe it, could lead to their never being suspended--and sometime before that nearly compromised an already difficult suspension with an unauthorized "press release." While I am sure the board of Alcor would take this former member back (especially if this person were in a terminal condition) I believe that Alcor might want to consider modifications to the usual contractual agreement Alcor makes with its members if this former member reapplies (perhaps this should be done generally) contractually binding members from falsely representing Alcor or other public and private acts damaging to Alcor. The Alcor board does seem to have power over who is an Alcor member, quoting the bylaws (adopted many years before I went on the board): ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3. TERMINATION OF MEMBER SERVICES The Board of Directors shall have summary power by a vote of a majority of its members to suspend or terminate the membership of any member, subject to limitations or warranties provided for by contract, for conduct which in its opinion disturbs the order, dignity, business, or harmony, or impairs the good name of the organization, or which is likely to endanger the interest and welfare of the organization. Such action may be initiated by any member of the Board. The proceedings of the Board of Directors in such matters is final and conclusive. Note the "subject to limitations or warranties provided for by contract" phrase. The current version of the contract with the members (Duties of Alcor, Article 12) states that "Alcor may cancel this Agreement at any time with 30 days written notice to the member if the Member has not fulfilled his/her duties as stated herein or if the Member has willfully misrepresented information given to Alcor." A number of Alcor members have become "former members" through non-payment of dues or by letting suspension funding lapse. Are these the only reasons for revoking membership? (Which has normally been done administratively and not by the board.) Or would a court find that the bylaws are "incorporated by reference" into the membership contract and that the board could terminate membership for sufficiently egregious conduct? Perhaps the lawyers on the list could comment. It is only in the last two years or so that the authority for accepting new (or returning) members was shifted from the board to the president. I am sure the new president has many of the same concerns as I do. Whether there are any good solutions to the problem of new or returning members damaging Alcor is unknown. As a practical matter, kicking a member out does not result in any reduction in their capacity to damage Alcor or Alcor members in need of our services. (This was fully demonstrated by the member who left and *continued* to generate problems.) It may, in fact, egg them on. As for Mike Darwin, I personally would welcome his return. He has been doing useful research related to cryonics (which I have been supporting by taking care of children while my wife and Naomi travel to Southern California to assist in his work), and if he were to become an Alcor member again and wanted those research results applied to *him* in a time of need, I presume he would be motivated to share his findings. >I am pleased to hear that this proposal was defeated by a vote among >board members. However, according to the report, three directors of >Alcor voted in favor of the proposal. It seems to me, if you believe >that cryonics has a chance of working, and if you believe that Alcor >does better cryonic suspensions than other groups (as I imagine those >three board members do believe), to block someone from joining Alcor >is like handing out a death sentence. I would like to hear, from the >three "gentlemen" who voted in favor of this proposal, what gives them >the moral right to hand out this kind of "justice" to anyone they >happen to dislike. (I would also like to know who, precisely, the >people were. They surely have no business being on the board of an >organization that states its purpose is "Life Extension.") Not speaking for the others, but "dislike" is not a consideration for me. Our responsibility to Alcor, its members, and patients is. >If this proposal had passed, it would have been a great violation of >human liberty. It would have given Alcor the potential right to decide >who lives and who dies. Even the US government doesn't give itself >this power (it is reserved for the court system). See the bylaw above, which (according to Steve Bridge) Mike Darwin wrote. >How would you feel if there were only three hospitals in the world, >and you went to the best of them with money in your hand to pay for >treatment that you need to save your life, and the doctors voted not >to save you because they didn't like something you had said? I would >like to see it written in Alcor's constitution that Alcor will NEVER >refuse membership because someone exercises freedom of speech. You make, incidentally, a good case for improving the other two cryonics organizations, and for starting others. I expect both to happen. Alcor does not have a constitution, though Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws amount to much the same thing. I don't believe that "freedom of speech" is mentioned. In any case, denying someone a suspension on the grounds of some opinion they expressed would likely fall under protection of the US constitution. However, I think the damage done to Alcor by one former member's activities falls outside of the usual meaning of "free speech." They might even be actionable. But even in that case, I would be happy to make the former member a suspension member again if he would use our services right away. :-) <--note, this is a "smilie face." But let me ask: Are there *any* circumstances where Alcor should refuse membership? I can think of real cases in which accepting some people as members would put the entire organization at risk. Would you like to be in the same dewar (or even the same building) as Saddam Hussein? Should Alcor expose our patients to this level of danger? And finally, I'm curious about Ms. Wells. How long have you subscribed to Cryonics? Are you signed up or considering it? Do you have other suggestions as to the kind of organizations would you like to see doing suspensions? My phone is 408-978-7616 if you want to discuss any of these matters. Ken Stone <> wrote: >HIV suspensions are only particularly difficult and hazardous *for >people who aren't already infected with HIV*. Having participated in two of the three HIV cases Alcor has, and expecting to be involved in three others, I partly agree. You do have to be careful, but the danger level is not that high. >Given a reasonable marketing effort within the HIV+ community, I >predict that one could find a vast amount of medical experience which >could be invaluable to cryonics-- along with a community of motivated >people who haven't had 60+ years to get too accustomed to the idea of >aging and dying. I have not looked deeply into this (the sample is too small) but near as I can tell, HIV+ folks are not much more likely to be interested in cryonics than the general run of the population. Recent rough calculations indicate that--given the motivation of being terminal-- there are about three times the present number of members who would sign up if they find themselves terminal. Given Alcor's population of in and out of suspension HIV+ cases, about the same ratio applies (i.e., I think most of them signed up before knowing they had HIV.) Keith Henson, Alcor board member, but speaking for himself PS There is considerable pressure from two influential Alcor "insiders" to considerably increase the suspension funding requirements and dues. Recent interest in the Omni contest indicates to me that a lot more members would sign up if the suspension funding could be *reduced.* More on this later--perhaps. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1785