Re: Precisions on the Martinot situation

From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 (gpmap@runbox.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 11:58:02 MDT

  • Next message: natashavita@earthlink.net: "Re: The establishment of a Historical Database/Discussion"

    This is very bad news, I hope that the appeal is successful. I can
    understand the logic bu which the lawyer chose to defend the legality of
    freezing as a way of burial, instead of trying to defend the idea of
    cryonics itself. The lawyer must have thought that insisting on something
    controversial like cryonics was not a good strategy.
    But, see things from this point of view. A corpse is an "object" to be
    disposed of as quickly, safely and inexpensively as possible (remember,
    France is a secular country, probably much less than the US). So choosing
    how to bury a corpse is not a big ethical issue, and from the point of view
    of a magistrate the best is just following what the current law says.
    Insisting on cryonics, the right to hope to be revived, etc., would turn it
    into an ethical issue. Perhaps this is a better strategy.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "JDP" <jacques@dtext.com>
    To: <extropians@extropy.org>
    Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 4:44 PM
    Subject: Re: Precisions on the Martinot situation

    Hi there,

    This is just to follow on my last report (September 2002, below) from
    France on the Martinot situation (cryonically frozen couple), and the
    legal battle linked to the legality of cryonics in France.

    The (bad, but expected) news is that Thursday (July 17, 03), the
    decision on the Nantes appeal ("administrative court") was given and
    it said freezing was not a legal way to bury people.

    (For best and worse, the lawyer chose to defend the legality of
    freezing as a way of burial, instead of trying to defend the idea of
    cryonics itself.)

    The lawyer, as he had already announced, said he would appeal to the
    "Conseil d'Etat" (highest administrative juridiction), and then, if
    needed, to the Court of HUman Rights.

    See below my previous report if you want more precisions (my comments
    there still apply).

    Best things to all

    Jacques

    Jacques Du Pasquier a écrit (10.9.2002/18:43) :
    > I'm back with more details (I'm not a jurist, I hope I got it right)
    > and some reflections. The situation is slightly more complicated, and
    > doesn't look particularly good within the French juridiction.
    >
    > On one hand, the Prefet of Maine-et-Loire, in April 02, willing to
    > proceed to the burial of the Martinots, got a decision in that sense
    > from Cour d'Angers. Rémy Martinot appealed to it as you remember, and
    > the Prefet waited for the decision on the appeal, which was due
    > yesterday.
    >
    > On the other hand, another court, "Tribunal administratif de
    > Nantes"(*), had to judge, more generally, whether congelation
    > constituted a proper and lawful burial. (That's the way they frame the
    > situation obviously.) Turns out they said no. That's bad. That was on
    > Thursday, and they justified it through the "General Code of
    > Collectivities" that says a dead body has to be cremated or inhumated.
    > Rémy Martinot appealed to that decision, too.
    >
    > So yesterday, Cour d'Angers, instead of saying to the Prefet that he
    > could, or could not proceed, said that it would wait for the decision
    > on the Nantes appeal.
    >
    > The decision on the Nantes appeal can take up to 6 months.
    >
    > If *that* decision is negative, Rémy Martinot's lawyer says they will
    > seize the "Conseil d'état", which in France is the highest authority
    > on administrative conflicts (and also adviser to the President).
    >
    > The Conseil d'Etat already rejected an appeal on a situation with the
    > preservation of a body in ice; however it doesn't seem that in that
    > case cryonics was intended. It was more like: keeping the body around,
    > without any hope of reviving it ever. So obviously one should plead
    > this is NOT a burial (otherwise they will make the same decision).
    > Rémy's lawyer said he was confident, because the situation here was
    > totally different. (But...)
    >
    > If the Conseil d'Etat says no, then last resort is to go the European
    > Court of HUman Rights, which they say they will if needed.
    >
    > I really hope that they plead the deep problem, that they make a case
    > for cryonics as something that is, though of course far from certain,
    > absolutely rational, and not just a funerary rite among others. I have
    > transmitted to the lawyer several documents to that effect, including
    > an article by Ralph Merkle (suggested by Robert), documentation on
    > Alcor and Cryonics Institute, names of reputed people taking cryonics
    > seriously, etc.
    >
    > Maybe if a lawyer really getting it would get in touch that would help
    > a bit? I feel that Alain Fouquet, Rémy's lawyer, needs some
    > encouragement to the effect that, yes, there is really a good case,
    > and it's possible to win. If you need contact info (including
    > telephone) for the lawyer, just ask me. I have provided my
    > encouragement, and he thanked me for that, but more encouragement, and
    > from people who are part of the juridical world, might be useful.
    >
    > The Conseil d'Etat are probably intelligent folks, and one might
    > succeed in explaining to them this should not be considered as a
    > burial, but as a situation that had not been considered in the making
    > of current law.
    >
    > Jacques
    >
    > (*) In France, you have specific courts for judging conflicts between
    > the citizens and administration. Apparently it is not the same in the
    > anglo-saxon countries. (Sorry if this is so obvious for the
    > juridically literate. Or if it's wrong.)
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 12:10:26 MDT