X-Message-Number: 3736 From: Subject: Re: Problems in cryonics Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:40:51 -0800 (PST) On 23 Jan 95 04:02:57 EST wrote: snip snip... > Finally Cosenza says I violate patient patient confidences. I do not. I didn't say that you violated patient confidences, but rather their *privacy*. There's a difference! Re discussions of case histories, I have no problem with such discussions per se (or using the patient's ID #), but their personal life and any psychological problems they may have are seldom relevant to those histories, and IMO should be excluded from any such discussions on the net or any other public forum! I am familiar with the terms and conditions of the Alcor Consent for Cryonic Suspension Contract I signed, and NOWHERE to my recollection does it say that published case histories should include info about the patient's personal life or mental illness (if any), and it certainly doesn't give anyone the authority to disclose such information publicly. At least, not in my interpretation of it. It would be helpful if we tried to think of these patients as *living* people. By doing that, the standard that ought to apply whenever we discuss them becomes obvious. > Also, I fail to see how the "tragic deaths" of two Alcor patients are being > exploited by me. I wasn't talking about two Alcor patients, I was talking about Margaret Bradshaw's problem. It's pretty tacky to say that brilliant, intelligent and creative people are often depressed and using Prozac, and then to follow that up by saying oh and by the way, I'm depressed and use Prozac. By those standards, I'd be another DaVinci! :-) Ever forward, David Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3736