X-Message-Number: 5779
From: Marshall Rice <>
Newsgroups: uk.legal,sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: Death (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 96 01:12:50 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>

In article <>  "Peter Merel" writes:

> 
> Marshall Rice's concerns appear to be partially answered by Brian
> Wowk's explanation of cryonics procedures, and Marshall's concerns
> about the feasibility of reconstruction are answered in Ralph
> Merkle's "The Technical Feasibility of Cryonics", available on-line at
> "http://www.cryonet.org/~kqb/0000.html".

Must read it.
 
> Given this, it appears that there is a good chance that Cryonics is a
> valid medical treatment. 

I agree. I wouldn't necessarily say a good chance, but there is a chance 
nontheless.

> Medicine is good. Medicine enriches our lives
> and sustains our loved ones. There should be no legislation against
> valid medical treatments.

I would go further. There should be no legislation against invalid medical
treatments either, unless they are proven to be harmful.


> Of course, there's still a real chance that cryonics won't work, or
> won't work well enough to make a difference.. If cryonics doesn't work,
> then it's pretty silly, but no sillier than fancy coffins, marble
> headstones and family crypts. It's not really more expensive than those
> things either, because you can pay for it with a life insurance policy.

Some may say it's no sillier than insurance, given the increasing tendency
of insurers to try to wriggle out of claims.

> .....<SNIP>

-- 
Marshall Rice


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5779