X-Message-Number: 5441 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:57:06 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Skrecky <> Subject: Re: banned in B.C.? >Is cryonics still banned in British Columbia? Well, yes and no. Strictly speaking cryonics itself was never banned in British Columbia. Rather it was the participation of companies incorporated in B.C. that was banned. Section 57 of the Cemetary and Funeral Services Act reads as follows: [Please note I have added (in B.C.) to the following text to help clarify it.] "No person shall offer for sale or sell any arrangement (in B.C.) for the preservation or storage of human remains based on cryonics, irradiation or any other means of preservation or storage, by whatever name called, that is offered or sold on the expectation of the resuscitation of human remains at a future time." Strictly speaking section 57 does not completely ban B.C. companies from becoming cryonics providers, provided no claims for future resuscitation are made. For instance Summum, which mummifies corpses and disavows any resuscitation claims could open a B.C. office legally. Section 57 does ban organ preservation for transplantation purposes (organs are human remains), but the powers that be have chosen not to enforce this for obvious reasons. >can anyone tell me why it's been banned? There are two types of answers to this. One is that a certain bureaucrat developed a dislike for cryonics after seeing what happened in California and slipped section 57 into the Act, which was then subsequently retained with no consultation by any member of the cryonics movement. This is the superficial answer. The real substantive answer is that cryonics was "banned" because it does not work. If technical advances ever succeeded in resuscitating a mammal that had been stored at liquid nitrogen temperatures and this fact was communicated to the minister in charge of enforcing the Act a review of section 57 would be virtually automatic. The following is a letter written by the former Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services in B.C.: "Thank you for your letter of August 24,1994, expressing your thought on the wording of section 57 of the Cemetary and Funeral Services Act. I would also like to thank you for the enclosed literature. The present wording of section 57 does not prevent the preservation and resuscitation of human remains, including organ transplants. Section 57 is intended to prevent the offering of preservation with the promise of resusciation at some time in the future. The technology required to resuscitate a dead human body does not exist at the present time. The present wording of the Act is intended to be representative of the present state of medical technology and to prevent possible exploitation of individuals at a vulnerable period in their lives. It is impractical to legislate present practices on the basis of what may or may not be possible at some future time. Approved research in the resuscitation of human remains will not be hampered by section 57 of the Act. Advances in the medical technology in this area may require a review of the present legislation at a future date. Your views will be considered when such a review is undertaken. Sincerely Joan Smallwood Minister" Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5441