X-Message-Number: 5538
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 96 14:14:54
From: John de Rivaz <>
Subject: Deterrent

In article: <> 
 writes:
> First, I am shocked by Rob Michels' death.  I only met him a 
> couple of times, but I really liked him.  He didn't live far from me.  
> And I am *really* upset by the Chapel Hill police, if that's who disposed 
> of his brain.
> 
> Steve, are you looking for suggestions for what to do with the insurance 
> money?  1)  Spend it trying to get hold of whatever bit of his brain is 
> in Chapel Hill.  If there's anything left over, then 2) exhume his body 
> in California and collect whatever is left in the skull.  And then, 3), 
> (or else number 1), SUE THE SOCKS OFF WHOEVER DISPOSED OF HIS BRAIN!
> 

Whereas revenge is often seen as destructive, a deterrent can be highly 
contructive.

If we can make anyone who interferes with a suspension, whether acting on 
his own behalf or for someone else, afraid that they may lose their assets 
or liberty or their life or even their life plus that of their families, 
then many of them will back off.

On the other hand, we don't want to be seen as terrorists, so threatening 
people lives and that of their families is an obviously unproductive excess.
However we could legitimately put people in fear of their jobs and 
homes and assets.

I suggest that the case against the French government officials responsible 
for ignoring AIDS information and letting contaminated blood into their 
country's transfusion services may give a pointer. I may be wrong, but it 
seems that there, it was sufficient to show that information was available 
at the time that is was unwise to use unscreened blood. This applied 
even though the court was viewing the offence with hindsight.

With foresight, could we possibly convince officials that there is a finite 
chance that information we have about the chances of revival will get 
authenticated within their lifetimes, or even the lifetime of their 
governmental system (in the wider sense, not just a particular term of 
office). If the bona fides of cryonics was authenticated within such a time 
frame, then similar litigation could be very damaging to individuals, 
professions or institutions found guilty of preventing a suspension.

Damages for loss of life are (again as far as I know) based on the probable 
length of that life should it have not been terminated by the act in 
question. In the case of a thwarted suspension, the length of life remaining 
is indeterminate, it could be infinite, it will certainly be of the order of 
six hundred years or more. (The average time before a fatal accident). If a 
government lost a case and this set precedent for several hundred people 
whose representatives argued that they could have lived thousands of years 
each, then the damages could be very substantial. An individual could be 
bankrupted for life with just one such case.

I am sure that there are some flaws in my suggestions - it is difficult to 
avoid being emotive over such issues. However further discussion on this 
list could generate some positive and constructive forms of "revenge" that 
are actually insurance designed to ensure that the maximum number of people 
who want to be, are suspended.

-- 
Sincerely,     ****************************************       
               * Publisher of        Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz  *                     Fractal Report   *
               *          details on request          *
               ****************************************
**** What is the point of life if it ends in death? ****


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5538