X-Message-Number: 2830 Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 17:52:33 From: Steve Bridge <> Subject: CRYONET Suspension Termination To CryoNet >From Stephen Bridge, Alcor Life Extension Foundation June 21, 1994 Following is an article from the next issue of the *Alcor Phoenix* members' newsletter, currently at the printer. This is an account of the first ever REMOVAL from suspension of an Alcor patient. Many of you have followed this case for the past four years and will not be surprised at the outcome. All of us at Alcor and many others who knew the history of this case feel a deep sadness that such a thing has occurred. I have a special sadness myself because this was the first suspension I had worked on from transport to encapsulation. Please take note of Carlos's message. This tragedy could have been prevented if Mr. and Mrs. "Graham" had simply gotten their paperwork signed. There are other cryonicists over the years who were buried because they hadn't gotten around to filling out the forms. If you're in this boat yourself, please don't wait. You shouldn't have your only immortality be an article like this on CryoNet. Steve Bridge **************************************************************** PAPERWORK COUNTS: Alcor is Forced to Surrender a Body for Burial by Carlos Mondragon In April the California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of lower court rulings which had mooted the anatomical donation of the body of "Sylvia Graham" to Alcor for cryonic suspension (see the report of the whole body suspension of A-1242, Oct. 1990 issue of *Cryonics*). The effect was to let stand a court order directing that Mrs. Graham's next of kin arrange a "Christian burial." This disposition of this case underscores the immense importance of executing for oneself the "onerous" paperwork which is required for Suspension Membership. Although we have from time to time reported on the progress of this case in *Cryonics* Magazine, here is a brief review. Mrs. Graham had not executed *any* Alcor paperwork by the time she became critically ill and unable to do so. The suspension was arranged by her husband, Dr. "Marvin Graham." This was not the first or last of Alcor's "last minute cases" (those suspensions arranged by persons other than the patient). Under California law and the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, a decedent's next of kin has the legal authority to arrange for disposition of remains, including anatomical donations, *in the absence of other written instructions by the decedent*. The litigation which ensued did not dispute the legality of cryonics or the right of the patient to have chosen cryonics. Rather, the issue was the patient's intent. About two months after the suspension, the patient's sister produced a photocopy of an old will signed by Sylvia Graham which explicitly stated that she wanted a Christian burial, and did *not* want to be "frozen or cremated"! The sister brought suit to force execution of that will. No original of the will was ever found, and it was Dr. Graham's contention that Sylvia had resolved her religious reservations regarding cryonic suspension and had, in fact, decided to sign up with Alcor several months prior to her death. The sign-up process had been delayed due to difficulties in arranging funding. Evidence supporting the suspension included the fact that the other, primarily monetary provisions of the will had been rendered invalid by changes to her estate which Sylvia had made in the last two years of her life. Mike Darwin and I gave testimony (by deposition and at trial) that Sylvia had apparently already changed her mind on cryonics when she and Dr. Graham visited Alcor a few months prior to her suspension. The trial court ruled that notwithstanding any evidence of Sylvia Graham's acceptance of cryonic suspension, she could not have given *informed consent* to the procedure. And since the judge accepted the legal status of cryonics as scientific research (that status having been established by an appellate court in Alcor's litigation with the California Department of Health) he went further: the standard of informed consent applied was equal to what would be required for medical experimentation on legally living patients. Alcor never did intervene or participate in this litigation. We had fought in the courts long, hard, and *successfully* to defend and firmly establish the legal right to choose disposition of one's remains. Since this case presumed the right to choose, our role was to provide moral support and hope for the best. Ultimately, when Dr. Graham was forced to carry out the court order, our only choice was to demur. (An attorney assured us, meanwhile, that our move to another state did not change our legal status in this matter.) The court had ruled that Sylvia's will and lack of informed consent had sufficiently revoked her husband's authority to have made an anatomical donation of her body. But as next of kin he was still obligated and empowered to arrange a final disposition within the guidelines set by the will: no freezing and no cremation. Dr. Graham and Alcor complied with the law. At the end of May, Sylvia's body was transported back to California for burial, the first time such an incident has happened in the history of Alcor. If there is any good news here, it is that you can expect the judiciary of the State of California to uphold your direction regarding disposition of your human remains after legal death. The caveat is that we had better be damned swift about making those directives. Even if full suspension membership has not been completed (for whatever reason), I believe that a signature on any two of the three core documents which comprise Alcor's core paperwork package would be sufficient to produce a different outcome in circumstances similar to those described above. Membership Administrator Derek Ryan is at 1-602-922- 9013, waiting for your call. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2830