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