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