X-Message-Number: 3519
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: Financial Arrangements (Was Re: Neuro vs. Whole Body)
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 04:47:58 GMT

Bridge Steve <> writes:
>     For example, we don't know which organizations will be in existence 
>30 years from now, much less which will have done the best job at 
>suspending and caring for patients.

Has Alcor made arrangements for its patients to be taken over by another 
organisation in the event that it becomes insolvent? If not, why not? It
seems to me that reciprocal arrangements among the major organisations
would be highly desirable, and that the added risk (one insolvency
leads to an overload of the facillities of the others, who then go over
like dominoes ...) could be insured against.

>     Most people do not want to switch back and forth from organization to 
>organization every couple of years as one gains a bit over another.  Most 
>people don't even like to change long distance companies each year, and 
>that can be done very simply.  The paperwork for signing up with a 
>cryonics company can be fearsomely complex, and you might change your mind 
>again in a couple of years, if things don't work out like you want.  So we 
>make our best guess and hope it was right.

Perhaps a level of indirection would help; the suspendee might leave his
funds with an insurer, and the insurer could then select and pay a carer
organisation. I'm sure that the large insurance companies would be eager
to hold on to the cash in exchange for only a little added responsibility.
That way, if the carer became insolvent, the insurer could arrange for
another to intervene. The advantage here is that most large insurers seem 
very stable and very financially competent.

It might be nice to give the insurer a carrot to invest in cryonics R&D
too - say, they get to keep the remaining funds if the suspendee is ever
reanimated.

>Remember, right now I don't think a whole body suspension necessarily 
>saves much more information than neurosuspension.  Being frozen at all and 
>staying frozen is a higher priority.

Yes. Bob Ettinger has a point in that whole-body means you might be able
to come back sooner, but the question that follows is whether it is safer to
stay frozen or to be brought back early. For my money, neuro sounds safer.

-- 

Internet:           |         Accept Everything.            |

http://www.usyd.edu.au/~pete           |         Reject Nothing.               |

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3519