X-Message-Number: 950 Date: 03 Jul 92 20:00:25 EDT From: Charles Platt <> Subject: CRYONET Recently (within the past week) something happened that seems, at first glance, to support the case of those people who want Alcor to be able to expell members who "sabotage" the organization. As I understand it, the event was as follows: A man whom I will refer to as Don contacted the national news media, gave them the name of an Alcor patient who was in critical condition, and encouraged journalists to go and interview the patient. Don acted without checking with Alcor, and without asking the patient. At best, this was presumptuous. At worst, it might have endangered the patient's chances of being suspended. The patient's family was (is) hostile to cryonics. They were already unhappy about the idea of the patient being suspended. Cryonics has a long history of problems caused by unsympathetic families, as anyone acquainted with the field should know. While the family may not have any legal right to interfere, in practice, there are other ways of being obstructive. Also, as a result of the media attention, the hospital reversed its policy of full cooperation. So: should Don be expelled from Alcor? Some people might think so. But in his case, it isn't possible. Why not? Because he isn't a member! Here, then, is the real problem. Any fool can cause trouble in cryonics, whether he is a member of Alcor, or Trans Time, or the Cryonics Institute, or all three, or none of the above. The threat of expulsion is meaningless; in fact, if someone WAS ever expelled, it would probably make him even MORE likely to cause trouble. The only answer (it seems to me) is to exercise extreme caution when discussing cryonics news with anyone who has a history of hasty or unpredictable behavior. Don was acting with good intentions (he felt that the publicity value was of overriding importance and that Alcor was guilty of squandering an opportunity for national exposure). Don is well-liked by some, and I've been friendly with him myself in the past. But anyone should have known not to tell him the name and location of a member in critical condition who had reason to prefer confidentiality. Does anyone have a suggestion (other than "exercise extreme caution," which sounds a bit lame) for avoiding potentially serious events like this in future? Clearly, expulsion isn't going to work. --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=950