X-Message-Number: 28256
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:01:04 -0700
From: "Jeff Davis" <>
Subject: Re: British Columbia Anti-Cryonics Law Update

In Message-Number: 28200
From: 
Subject: British Columbia Anti-Cryonics Law Update
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:14:15 US/Eastern

Ben quotes a letter from Solicitor General John Les, dated June 23,
2006.  Below is an excerpt:

"At this point in time, information continues to support the view that
the benefits of the present legislation outweigh any drawbacks.
Government continues to be concerned about British Columbians who may
be taken advantage of at a time when they are experiencing grief and
sorrow associated with the loss of a family member or friend.
Government is also troubled by the notion that consumers who are
concerned with their own mortality, or who have a terminal medical or
health situation, are particularly vulnerable to the promise of being
brought back to life when this clearly cannot be delivered by
present-day science.

"Government intends to maintain the consumer protections provided
through the <i>Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act</i>
as we believe these provisions continue to be in the bet interests of
the public and help to ensure a fair marketplace for British Columbia
consumers and businesses."

           *******************************************************************

I find this interesting and worthy of consideration here on the
cryonet.  Specifically the following:

"Government continues to be concerned about British Columbians who may
be taken advantage of at a time when they are experiencing grief and
sorrow associated with the loss of a family member or friend."

This is not an unreasonable concern.

I have no doubt that a central feature of the Funeral Services
business and its regulation is routine vigilance to protect against
just such advantage-taking/abuse.  And it must be tough, since it
seems likely that historically, the funeral business, as a business,
has been most lucrative (abusive) when it centers itself at that very
confluence of greed, grief, and exploitation.

So John Les's concern is clearly reasonable, and and his attitude of
vigilance -- and suspicion -- a professionally acquired and required
practice.

So consider that the opposition cryonics faces in BC is not about
cryonics or even the view of cryonics held by various governmental
actors, but originates in the historical record of the funeral
business as sleazy/exploitative.

I ask you to view the problem in this light, and to then consider a
slightly different, perhaps more effective, approach to remediation.

We who are involved in the cryonics enterprise know that it is not a
scam:  cryonicists and their organizations are not engaged in fraud,
abuse, bad faith, exploitation, or hucksterism.  We are in vigilant in
policing our project, actively working to prevent ethical abuses.
(For obvious, essential, practical reasons.)  The folks in BC are
committed to consumer protection.  So are we.  This fact, of our
common cause, must be communicated to those who, for whatever reason
--  chiefly, I think, a simple ignorance of the cryonics community and
its ethical character  -- might think otherwise.   Our two groups are
pursuing a mutual goal.  We're on the same page, but due to a
misunderstanding haven't realized it yet.

Remember Jonathan Despres?  When trouble shows up on our doorstep, we
deal with it.

Best, Jeff Davis

               "Everything's hard till you
                     know how to do it."
                              Ray Charles

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28256