X-Message-Number: 31750
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Ossifur <>
Subject: Maxim asserts anti-disinterment view

http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/message/1245337961/Alcor%27s+Lost+Patient


Maxim's angle here is to focus on the loss of the cryo-patient-- which is valid.
She also draws attention to the bad reputation Alcor is creating for cryonics 
by pushing for disinterment. 


Knowing Alcor as I do-- as behaviorists-- it may very well be that they're using
the threat of disinterment as a means of counter-attack to neutralize the 
relative's attempt to reclaim the 50K. They might have no intent whatsoever of 
actual disinterment but believe that the threat of it will cause the relatives 
to back down-- or future relatives to not risk disinterment. 


Disinterment would raise the entire Chatsworth history again, among other 
things. Its so patently rediculous and absurd to contemplate that only horror 
can result from any real attempt. 


Maxim's statement on Cold Filter is getting ZERO attention-- and response-- 
again a behaviorists' way of dealing with a hot potatoe-- ignore it and it will 
go away-- they think. Well-- humans are not pigeons.  So you can't pigeon hole a
human. I like the way the truth always has a funny way of surfacing. To me, 
THAT is entertainment. 


As for the 50K, I think it ought to be returned to the relatives... and that we 
Alcor members should write the Alcor board and, for our sake as cryonicists, 
simply give the relatives their money back. There was incomplete customer 
service on this account. Let's try to be businesslike-- and let's see Alcor 
members support this view. 


The contract says to cryopreserve under any condition-- but that did not take 
into account the details of this current case. Any condition would have referred
to a case where the member's preservation is not challanged by relatives and 
constitutes an under-serviced account. For example, members who deanimated in 
helicopter crashes, shootings or other violence where there is still something 
to recover-- WOULD qualify-- but THIS particular case isn't LIKE those. You 
can't cover everything in a contract-- but you can surmise the INTENT of the 
contract-- and this case is outside that intent. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31750

Warning: This message was filtered from the daily CryoNet digest
because the poster's reputation was too low.
It thus may need to be rated.