X-Message-Number: 7173
From:  (Kenton E. Sinner)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Definitions
Date: 19 Nov 1996 01:34:48 GMT
Message-ID: <56r2ro$>

References: <56jdk1$> <> 
<56qi66$> <56qlsc$>

Charles Platt () wrote:

: Some of us use the phrase "legal death" to acknowledge the outdated law on
: this subject. In cryonics literature however we may argue that legal death
: is not death in the everyday sense that most people mean the word; i.e. 
: it may not be a permanent irreversible state. The only conflict here is
: between the law and reality (so what else is new?). 

: It is indeed fortunate that the law is out of date, because (as you say) 
: it enables us to use non-FDA-approved procedures on people whom we regard
: as not-necessarily-dead, while the law says they are dead. When (if) the
: law is updated to define death more realistically, cryonics will be hit
: with a regulatory burden that will eliminate most of the "life saving"
: procedures that are conducted by cryonics organizations today. The
: organizations obviously are not financially able to seek FDA approval for
: the procedures, or even for the drugs, since the FDA only allows drugs to
: be prescribed for recognized health conditions, and (terminal) death is
: not included in that category!

Good point!  Yet another reason to nuke the FDA (go get 'em, Saul! :)

I wonder if anyone has estimated the number of lives saved by the FDA,
and the number of lives taken by the FDA's keeping medical technologies
out of the hands of Americans, and then done a little subtraction ...

:(

--
                    Ken Sinner <+> 
             "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" -- H. Simpson
             <+><+>  Legalize freedom, vote Libertarian. <+><+>
               Linux -- it's not just for penguins anymore ...
    -+- Please do not send unsolicited marketing email to this account. -+-


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7173