X-Message-Number: 5450
From:  (hEpCaT)
Subject: Re: Recklessness?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 13:01:39 -0800 (PST)

 sez:
> Perhaps you're intending to reduce the risks of reckless behaviour to
> patients. But flames aren't any way to do that - quality management,
> standardisation of procedures, peer-review and accreditation schemes,
> education of regular medical personnel and so on  - these are ways to do
> that.  

Right on both counts. But there is no accreditation scheme, and even if
all the exisiting organizations could agree on one (highly unlikely) then
we still have the problem of enforcement mechanisms. In the absense of
regulation complete disclosure is the only protection any consumer has. 
I would prefer that there never be any governmental regulation of cryonics,
but if even basic law is flaunted in the process then possible regulation
is irrelevant. Your suggestions are very sensible, just not realistic.

> please explain this to me - I'm not involved in any of these
> organisations, neither in their administrations nor even signed up -

I'm not involved in any of the organizations either, but I am signed up. 
Maybe you need to care enough to *be* signed up before you start perceiving 
"reckless behaviour..." as a personal threat. What I want to accomplish
is consumerism: I know I am not the best person to be the Ralph Nader of 
cryonics, but nobody else seems to have the stomach to be loudly and 
brutally honest. 

Ever forward,

David

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Cosenza                                           
PGP 2.3a Public Keys available by finger or ftp.netcom.com:/pub/dc/dcosenza
1264-bit Key fingerprint = BF 6C AA 44 C6 CA 13 3F  4A EC 0A 90 AE F3 74 6D
4096-bit Key fingerprint = A4 79 15 79 D2 73 7D 3F  34 88 2E ED 93 6F 46 B1
     "When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption."

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5450