X-Message-Number: 4515 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 13:55:06 From: Steve Bridge <> Subject: Assisted Suicide Laws To CryoNet >From Steve Bridge, Alcor June 15, 1995 There are several interesting subjects on CryoNet right now. I'd love to be part of the debate; but we just did a suspension (details in a day or two), and I am up to my ears in other projects which have to be completed in the next two weeks. Still, I need to jump in on one debate. There has been some nervousness expressed that tying cryonics with euthanasia could be destructive to cryonics. Frankly, this is not our experience; but some qualifications are required, especially as to language. In the United States we rarely use the phrase "voluntary euthanasia." In fact, "euthanasia" has taken on a strong negative connotation of *involuntary death* -- the phrase "mercy killing" is commonly used as a synonym. So in the United States the term "assisted suicide" is most common for those circumstances where a terminally ill person chooses -- on his own volition -- to terminate his life. Alcor has some unusual experience with this because of the Thomas Donaldson case in 1990. Thomas (a frequent contributor to this list) has a brain tumor, currently in remission. But someday this tumor may begin to grow again; and, if it cannot be halted quickly, will essentially destroy Thomas's memory and identity long before it induces "legal death." When Thomas discovered this in late 1989, he decided --in concert with Alcor-- to seek judicial permission to go into cryonic suspension before legal death, as quickly as possible should the tumor started to grow again. Since one cannot place oneself into suspension, such a procedure would come under the heading of "assisted suicide." It is legal to attempt suicide in all 50 states of the U.S. In 1990 it was illegal to *assist* someone to commit suicide in all 50 states (as far as we knew then; Kevorkian had not yet raised our awareness of the fuzziness in Michigan law). Thomas could simply have done something to end his own life, of course. The REAL problem was that a suicide would have become a coroner's case; and (especially that soon after the highly publicized Dora Kent investigation) an autopsy and many legal delays in suspension were extremely likely. So Thomas also sought an injunction against an autopsy. (Please pardon the necessary simplification in order to move on to the basic points of this discussion.) The California Superior Court and Court of Appeals refused Thomas's request, on the grounds that they could not overturn the assisted suicide act and that such relief would have to come from the legislature. Fortunately for Thomas (and for all of us friends), he is still doing pretty well. But the key point here is the reaction of people at the time. Alcor did an immense amount of publicity concerning the Donaldson Case, including a number of major print articles, dozens of radio interviews, and an appearance on the Phil Donahue Show. Even though some of the listeners were not convinced that cryonics would *work*, the amount of empathy for Thomas's situation was incredible. For the first time, many individuals were able to see themselves in a situation where they themselves might choose suicide and might even choose cryonics. And just about everyone seemed to *understand* the choice. Thomas was faced with death -- possibly what most people would label as an "horrible" death. He wanted to have control of his situation. People did NOT see cryonics as a type of suicide or death wish. From my experience at that time and since, it is very clear to most people that cryonics was not an attempt at suicide. They understand very well that we may be forced to *use the laws* dealing with suicide to accomplish our aims. Americans are very much aware that one tries to use the law in your favor even if that was not the original intent of the statute in question. We are a country of laws, for good or for ill. In short, I do *not* believe that cryonics will gain a bad image if we use the various new laws which permit assisted suicide in terminal cases. These people are dying and have no other choice. Allowing pre- mortem cryonic suspension of terminal patients will ENHANCE the image of cryonics to a degree that we might all have trouble imagining, as long as we handle the decisions in an ethical and professional way. And, of course, if we continue to EXPLAIN the differences between cryonics and true suicide. Certainly, if we encourage people to go into suspension because they are depressed or mildly ill or somewhat inconvenienced, then we will have image difficulties. But as long as we restrict premortem suspension to people in definitely terminal conditions, most people will see us as attempting to preserve life. Contrary to some opinions, I think it is possible that eventually the Catholic Church will view cryonics as a permissible medical technology. Several priests have already told us that they see no religious conflicts. attempt to avoid suicide. I also speculate that the Catholic Church may even view *pre-mortem* cryonic suspension as something other than suicide. The intent is completely different. Suicide is wilfully choosing death when other options exist. Cryonics is willfully choosing life when the only option left is death. In any case, I am delighted to see Australia's Northern Territory passing a law allowing assisted suicide. Yes, if it is practical, Alcor would be happy to use that law for our benefit, as well as any other similar laws passed in the United States. I cannot at the moment speculate on the different technical approaches that might be used. Others will have a better idea than I of the possibilities. However, the legal and social aspects are in my territory, and I firmly believe these favor us using whatever laws may be best for our patients. That kind of caring attitude and respect for life -- even if we have to use the appearance of death to save lives -- will gain respect for cryonics. Steve Bridge Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4515