X-Message-Number: 4067
From: 
Subject: Various......
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 12:04:21 -0800 (PST)

I'd like to thank Bob Ettinger for his comments on how CI proposes to deal 
with the legal liabilities, and also for his addendum. I do have one question 
for him, though. Since the provider in question has already taken this
inappropriate action TWICE, why are you now willing to extend more credit?
And if you'll take note of that provider's own message of yesterday #4063, 
you'll see that even he agrees that such inappropriate action is a very real 
and dire threat to frozen patients, and cannot be easily dismissed or 
ignored.

Bob analogizes CI's unbundled function with that of a cemetary. He is right
that if there is a murder investigation, they don't usually exhume more than
one body. But, morticians are not commonly in attendance when their clients
die. When Bob suggests that "oversight" organizations would be motivated
to repair the damage and pay for it, he is again extending credit without
any reasonable basis, especially since he specifically refers to ACS and
CryoCare (see also the reply from CryoCare's vice president to my original
post).

In message #4058 Perry Metzger says that the police wouldn't bother to autopsy
all the patients under a given service provider's care since cryonics is just 
an unusual burial. I couldn't disagree with him more. Back in '87 when the 
Riverside County Coroner and his deputies raided Alcor over the murder of Dora 
Kent, they threatened to take ALL of the patients!! It was only due to some 
carefully executed legal maneuvers, and wide press coverage of the event that 
saved Dora Kent (and Alcor's other patients) from certain doom. Interestingly 
enough, the reaction of Alcor's president to those events (back then Mike 
Darwin) was to have a breakdown, leaving others to clean up the mess. So if 
the past is any indication of what the future has in store, then I'd say 
CryoCare members are riding on a VERY thin line that could likely snap 
someday!

Finally, it looks like Charles Platt needs to get together with his cronies
and get his story straight. It's getting pretty old that he is always either
denying that he knows what has happened, or he goes to extremes to evade
the question. If Charles wants to assert that I am in ANY WAY dishonestly
representing the past, then he should be urging the injured party to sue me.

Ever forward,

David

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4067