X-Message-Number: 9487 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:07:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Motives Some posts here suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of motives. I'm concerned especially by the automatic assumption, expressed by several people, that "attacks" have taken place. I believe this is incorrect. First, I don't believe that any cryonics organization wants to see any other cryonics organization suffer financially or lose members. I assumed that this was obvious--but maybe I was wrong to make that assumption. Presumably, we all want the same thing: to protect life. I feel this very intensely, because I abhor death. I have lost two parents and many friends, all irrevocably. The destruction of their memories, intelligence, personalities, and skills is unforgivable. This is why I donate my time to cryonics. For years it bothered me that, so far as I could see, simple precautions might enhance protection of some cryonics patients and make a difference between their renewed life or permanent death. For whatever reason (embarrassment, politeness, feelings of futility) I said nothing about this publicly. If cryonics were like any other professional discipline, ranging from medicine to construction work, we would have a code of standards and practices administered by some independent body. But there's no time or money to establish such a system. Therefore, if any group claims that their methods produce good results--and since the basic nature of cryonics prohibits conclusive feedback--there's no easy way to dispute such claims; and if a claim *is* challenged, there's an immediate prospect of irritable inconclusive debate which nontechnical observers will be ill-equipped to judge and may even find offensive. So there is a powerful incentive, in cryonics, not to be a whistle-blower. But--what if a really well established body of scientific knowledge conflicts with the methods used by an organization? What if this body of knowledge suggests that patients are experiencing avoidable harm? What if the damage might conceivably make the difference between renewed life or permanent death? If someone feels 100-percent certain about these beliefs, what should he do? The first step, of course, is private notification and discussion. But if this has been tried several times by more than one person, over a period of years, with no result--then, surely, a public forum is the only option left, no matter how unsatisfactory it may be. Here on CryoNet and on sci.cryonics I phrased my initial comments about CI mostly as questions, because this seemed the least confrontational approach and also allowed for the possibility that _I might be wrong._ Also, in accordance with standard journalistic practice, I telephoned CI and spoke to someone who sounded as if he knew what he was talking about; and I verified all the points that seemed key. (I note, incidentally, that this kind of fact checking is highly unusual--maybe even unprecedented--in most online debates. No one has ever called CryoCare to check any facts.) To me, this does not sound like an "attack." It was a conscience-driven attempt to air issues that I find very ethically difficult. Maybe the attempt was poorly executed. The subsequent exchanges became personal, for which I share some of the blame; but the initial intent was simply to save lives, in a field where no commonly agreed standards exist. I am glad that Bob is willing to accept some donated equipment from others who, I believe, share my feelings precisely. Thank you. --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9487