X-Message-Number: 5451
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: Standards and Accreditation
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:47:48 +1100 (EST)

David Cosenza writes,

>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. 

Surely that's the point of standards and accreditation - if an
individual cryonics technician doesn't adhere to the standards, then
that person loses their accreditation; if an organisation doesn't meet
reporting, legal or ethical standards, then the whole organisation loses
their accreditation. Accreditation becomes a selling point, and those
organisations that don't maintain it find it difficult to explain themselves
to customers and legislators.

I think it's easy to say that "there is no accreditation scheme",
but if you're really serious about improving patient security and the
quality of patient care, of being cryonics' Ralph Nader, then why don't
you work to create one?  That would be a really effective move towards
patient security, and I daresay a very useful tool for organisations to
use to handle legislators and customers alike. The time is ripe, and
you're obviously passionate and committed - why aren't you the guy to do this?

>In the absense of
>regulation complete disclosure is the only protection any consumer has. 

Of course open and complete disclosure, so far as it is feasible, is
much to be desired. We've seen here over the last two weeks that
disclosure of internal memoranda and private communications is not
quite so desirable :-) 

But as to protection, I see no reason why we need a government authority in
order for cryonics to be regulated - cryonics can be, and so far as
practicable should be self-regulating. After all, quality management is a
well-developed field these days, and a self-styled Ralph Nader should
find no end of tried-and-true material to apply here.

>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. 

Oh, I very much agree. Part of a standard for cryonics organisations
should evaluate their awareness, compliance and preparedness to deal
with the local laws, constabulary and politicians. I'd expect a cryonics
standard to go into this in detail.  Cryonics organisations may bitch
about the costs involved in employing qualified people to perform such
functions, but so far as I can see there are no two ways about this -
either organisations are trying to preserve their patients by minimising
their legal exposure, or they are not.

>Your suggestions are very sensible, just not realistic.

If you think that you can improve patient security by flaming then
you're not being realistic. The only way you're going to accomplish your
ends is by diplomacy - find the right people to create the standards,
canvas the organisations to gain their support for the standards, and
devote your efforts to rational, measured and appropriate policing of the
standards. That's what Ralph Nader is about - not personal attacks and
insinuations. There *is* a way to achieve what you're proposing - but
I think you haven't set about it yet.

>Maybe you need to care enough to *be* signed up before you start perceiving 
>"reckless behaviour..." as a personal threat. 

Another flame? I'm not committed enough to have an opinion? You need to think
very hard about how to get support for the measures you're going to need to
put in place - you won't do that by poo-pooing your supporters.

>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. 

Brutality doesn't enter into it. Old Ralph Nader is a tactful guy.
There's two good reasons for this - first, it's a big waste of time to
say reckless things and then defend them, in or out of a courtroom, and a
consumer advocate can't afford that time. Second, saying such things
makes people take you less seriously, and a consumer advocate can't
afford to be dismissed as a crackpot or a joke.

David, I *want* people here to take your concerns seriously. I think
they're just as important to the long term survival of patients as the
medical techniques that are being developed. But you desperately need to
improve your methods, or else your concerns will come to nothing, and
all people will see is a brutal guy. I said before that you're brave,
but, again, without subtlety, your bravery *is* recklessness - it's
acting without thought for the effects of your actions. 

Give your concerns the treatment they deserve - not as the voice of
brutal honesty, but as the voice of reason. Brutal honesty is a way of
making a rod for your own back - it makes your enemies incensed and your
friends wary. But show people that there is reason behind your words,
and that that reason is in their own self-interest, and then you'll gain
broad support. Show impartiality, restraint and compassion, even for your
enemies, and then you'll have a lasting effect. Broad support and
lasting effects are the only way your concerns can be satisfied.

Peter Merel.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5451