X-Message-Number: 5738
From:  (Brian Wowk)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension,uk.legal
Subject: Re: Death (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley)
Date: 14 Feb 96 00:30:45 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>


In <>  (Greg 
REILLY-COOPER) writes:

>I had not realised that.  Perhaps I need help ?  Me, and millions of
>others who, whilst not exactly "chomping at the bit", are content to
>believe that there is a hereafter.  In my view, it is not death but
>the process of dying - and the worry that one's personal process may
>be unpleasant - which is fearful.

	If a 90-year-old dies in his sleep after a long and happy life,
most people would say his death was okay and nothing to fear.  But to
extend this reasoning to the general conclusion that death (painless
or otherwise), at all times, to and for all people, is always an okay
thing that we need never worry about is absurd!  If my wife dies tomorrow,
that is NOT okay.  If my daughter dies tomorrow, that is NOT okay.  Whenever 
anyone dies of a potentially-curable condition, that is NOT okay!
That's why there is such a thing as medical research.

	Will you at least concede that there are *some* instances when
death is tragic, and something to be avoided?   

>Such sardonic prattle does little to advance your case and does more
>to invite derision.  The disposal of human remains has long been
>subject to legislation and if you feel that you have a viable
>alternative to anything which is currently accepted as "the norm" it
>is for you, and not the rest of society, to state the case.

	On the contrary.  If you wish to legally impede people from
choosing cryonics as a means of disposition, it is YOU who must
state the case.  It is a basic principle of U.S. Constitutional Law
(and I believe British law as well) that everything is legal unless
it is specifically illegal.  In other words, if I choose to do something
outside the "currently accepted norm," it is automatically legal 
until legislated otherwise.  On the basis of this legal principle, 
a California court several years ago reaffirmed the legality of 
cryonics after the Department of Health Services tried to argue that
cryonics was illegal because there was "no box for cryonics" on
their disposition forms.

	There is also another legal view one can take.  Cryonics
resembles in many respects a small, but growing religion.  Historically, 
religious persecution has bode very badly for the future of governments
and societies.  If Britain and America ever became so intolerant
as to outright ban cryonics, I would become worried about a lot
more than cryonics-- and so should the rest of you.  
  
>I, for one, begin to wonder how much (you) "cryonics organisations"
>are motivated by profit.

	 I have worked part time for cryonics for 10 years without
pay, run up more than $50,000 in personal expenses directly related
to cryonics (not including my own cryonics arrangements!), and
probably sacrificed that same amount again in lost income.
I still receive no income from cryonics, and have no prospect of
income for the foreseeable future.  If someday I become rich
from cryonics, that would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
In any case, if the historical record finally shows cryonicists
to be fools, let it at least show were were *sincere* fools! :)

>  The "obstacle" which you refer to and are
>patently unable to recognise is not "people like (us) who want to pull
>the plug" but people like you who are either unwilling or unable to
>make a case for change.  Until and unless you do, it is entirely
>reasonable for the rest of us to expect you to accept the established
>norms.

>It is probably cause for lament among those who do genuinely believe
>in the value of cryonics that someone like you should make such a poor
>show of explaining the position whilst at the same vesting yourself
>with the profile of President of a "cryonic organisation".

	As one of the most prolific and widely read popularizers
of cryonics, I have done more than my fair share to make the case
for cryonics.  If you would like me to restate the case here, I
can do that until the cows come home.  Since however this is
cross-posted to uk.legal, it would be more appropriate for me
to simply refer you to the CryoCare Web pages. 

	My purpose in participating this thread is not to defend
cryonics.   It is to expose the legal and moral bankruptcy of
those who believe they have the right to make cryonics (or any
other unorthodox practice) illegal simply because it does not
conform to their vision of "what is currently accepted as the norm."

***************************************************************************
Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Your Gateway to the Future        
   http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5738