X-Message-Number: 5721
From: Garret Smyth <>
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension,uk.legal
Subject: Re: Death (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley)
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 21:40:04 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <4flato$>

John de Rivaz :
> >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.  ...

Nick Maclaren: 
> 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.

Me (Garret):
There must be something wrong with me! I find myself agreeing with Nick
Maclaren! I reckon that from a legal point of view, the UK (well, England
and Wales, and I think Scotland) are pretty good as regards cryonics. Things
tend to be legal here until they are made illegal, unlike a lot of Europe.
 
> 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.

How could I prove to you that I don't have a phobia about death? (And don't
say anything silly like "blow your brains out" since I will only ask you,
as the brave one, to go first. It is considered a sickness by psychiatrists
if you don't want to live. Anyone admitting that they don't want to die is
only being honest.

Please tell me, and this isn't a flippant question, just what is so good
about being dead?

> There are sound
> social and ethical grounds for making human cryonics illegal...

This is a bit provocative! Unlike other cryonicists, I shall try to remain
calm and not make any anti lawyer statements (although those who know me
will know how hard it is for me not to post a lawyer joke at this point!)

Okay, what are the grounds for making cryonics illegal? (Remember - by 
your own definition that such grounds would be politics, not law.)

> , 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.

Cryonics itself will probably never take up a huge amount of the resources
of the community and the society (however you define them) because most
people won't want to sign up until they are convinced every aspect of the
process is reliable. One aspect is that (most) of us reckon that the ageing
process can be conquered and one day reversed and don't want to be revived
until we can also be rejuvinated. When that happens cryonics will be accepted,
but unusual, because prevention of ageing would remove most causes of death.

Pish tush (or words to that effect) I hear you say. Perhaps you missed the
Sunday Times article a few weeks ago about the latest state of play in the
anti-ageing research field. Anyway, there is an increasing amount of research

bieng done, and it is beginning to show results. Your social and ethical reasons
for banning cryonics will have to take into account the increasing human
lifespan. Cryonics won't make a big difference to the world, because longevity
research will happen whether or not people are frozen.

I hope your view of the future isn't of a world where we are given specific
lifespans by the state and bumped off when we reach them.

> 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.

Yes, and there was a court case last year about a child with cancer who was
considered a poor investment by her health authority and refused treatment.
I don't recall the outcome of the case, but the child was treated (privately,
I think) and has so far responded well and is still alive.

You see, we cryonicists raise our own funds for suspension. We don't expect
the NHS to cough up. You can argue how you like about public funds, but thank
heaven British politics has gained enough rationality to have reached a sort
of consensus that people can do as they wish with their own funds.

I can think of a lot of things people are legally allowed to spend money on,
and people do.

It may be uncertain, but the odds of cryonics working have to be a bloody sight
better than those of scooping the jackpot on the Lottery!

TTFN

Garret	(An Alcor member)

-- 
Garret Smyth

Phone:  0181 789 1045 or +44 181 789 1045


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5721