X-Message-Number: 5763 Date: 19 Feb 96 14:28:07 EST From: Saul Kent <> Subject: Opinion And Choice Marshall Rice says he doesn't believe it will ever be possible to restore today's cryonics patients to life with their identities intact. That's fine with me. He's entitled to his opinion and he may be right. That's why I've been funding research and pushing as hard as I can to * improve* and, eventually, perfect freezing methods. Where he and I part company is his suggestion that, perhaps, governments should ban cryonics because of his (and others) opinion that cryonics (as practiced today) won't work. If he ever takes any action to implement such a ban, he will become my mortal enemy. Brad Templeton says that cryonics organizations should not suspend anyone prior to legal death even if it becomes legal to do so. He goes on to say that: "If I were a member of a cryonics organization that even publicly considered suspending a living patient, I would think seriously about switching cryonics orgs." I suspect he may not have that choice. If freezing before legal death becomes legal, I doubt that there will be *any* cryonics organization that will *not* offer this service. I personally don't know of anyone in the cryonics movement that would not want to take advantage of any legal option that would increase their chances of survival. If public opinion had been a barometer of the practice of cryonics, there never would have been any cryonics organizations. Even today, most people share Marshall Rice's opinion that cryonics (as it is practiced today) won't work. That's fine, as long as their opinion doesn't infringe upon my choice. Certainly, Brad Templeton will be able to choose to be frozen after legal death after it is legal to freeze patients *before* legal death, but he may not be able to find a cryonics organization that denies freezing before legal death to others. ---Saul Kent Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5763