X-Message-Number: 26998 Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:34:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Davis <> Subject: Re: well intentioned initiatives Cryonetters, "Jordan Sparks" <> wrote: > I've contacted the Oregon Mortuary Board. The director was very nice and nonjudgemental. He said cryonics is not currently recognized as a lawful means of final disposition in Oregon, ... This is a semantic problem arising from two completely different perspectives--the conventional perspective: "dead is dead", vs the cryonics visionary perspective: "clinically dead" isn't really dead, it just means that medical intervention has reached the limit of current capability. These divergent perspectives show up in the term "final disposition". This terminology is to be expected of a Mortuary Board individual. As the cryonics guy, Jordan, you need to confront this erroneous point of view and promote (insist on, actually) the more correct model: simply, that cryonic suspension is a medical response to an otherwise lethal inevitability. Cryonic suspension is "storage" not "final disposition". I commend you on your plan/vision. Regarding legalities, I would concur in requiring -- howbeit with a more supportive tone than Charles' cautionary response -- a thorough, professional, and reality-based evaluation of the legal obstacles. It really is a very nasty world out there amidst the powerful, greedy, craven, and prejudiced. To successfully avoid these obstacles requires legal and political expertise/savvy. I have no doubt however, that it can be done. I'm no lawyer. Nevertheless, my approach to the legal challenges would follow two lines of reasoning: (1) the right to life. Stated in the constitution, in the Bill of Rights, 5th Amendment: "No person shall be... deprived of life, ...without due process of law." This is the basis of the right of self-defense and the right to essential medical care. Thus the case can be made that access to cryonics, as a lifesaving medical procedure, has bedrock constitutional protection. (2) Concurrently, I would wed the protections of the First and 14th Amendments. The First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Since both medical and funerary practices have been and remain strongly influenced by religious beliefs, and since one can make the case that the "belief" in cryonics (I personally prefer the term "confidence", but in this context "belief" works better) is the rationalist equivalent of "religious faith", one can then assert that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment protects cryonicists' rights -- as it does similar rights of the devoutly religious -- to specify personal medical care and "funerary" practices. But, of course, law is a dirty business, so expect to have to slog your way through to your goal. Best, Jeff Davis "Our father was not a religious man. The faith that many people place in God, we place in science and other human endeavors." John Henry and Claudia Williams __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26998