X-Message-Number: 5720 From: (Nick Maclaren) Newsgroups: sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension,uk.legal Subject: Re: Death (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley) Date: 11 Feb 1996 18:01:28 GMT Message-ID: <4flato$> References: <> <> In article <>, John de Rivaz <> wrote: > >Being in cryonic suspension is the *second* worst thing that can happen to >you. Being burned or rotted is the worst. That may be your judgment - it isn't mine. >The legal profession ought not to deprive people of the freedom to take the >chance that they can be revived from cryonic suspension. It ought to >provide a *cheap and easy* means for them to make the financial provisions >for this. ... Your first statement is true, and your second is false. It is not the business of the legal profession to decide whether or not cryonic suspension should be encouraged, tolerated or forbidden. That is the privilege of society as a whole, through whatever form of government the society uses. There are a good many people (of whom I am one) who regard the modern phobia about death as a symptom of a sick society. There are sound social and ethical grounds for making human cryonics illegal, but my own view is that this is not yet necessary. If, however, it starts to affect (note: not just use) a significant proportion of society's resources, then I shall change my mind. This is relevant to the unconscious people kept 'alive' only by extremely expensive life support, and where their only gain from this is a slim or infinitesimal hope of spontaneous recovery. There is a court case going on just now, to decide whether a hospital has the right to refuse to spend resources on what it regards as a hopeless case. And this question is becoming more important by the day. Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England. Email: Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5720