From: JDP (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 09:50:29 MDT
Brett Paatsch a écrit (25.7.2003/14:49) :
> For now, imo, given the French attitude to 'social health',
> it would be a *mistake* to argue that cryonics makes
> sense on positive health grounds. (The "health grounds"
> issue is a net loser, in that it is more likely that thawing
> heads and cadivers from failed business ventures or
> voluntary organisations or desparate do-it-yourselfers
> are more likely to spread diseases then buried or burnt
> ones). The event of the failed cryonic facility in the US
> could be brought up. I'd want to have an answer to
> that if I was the lawyer perhaps an example of a poorly
> managed cemetary and so put the point as being about
> management.
No one thought of defending cryo on public health grounds, I think.
(Though that may be grounds on which it is combatted.)
> Are the French allowed to take out insurance?
You can contract any insurance you like in France... You are forced to
contract some state-managed insurances, depending on your profesionnal
status. But you are free to contract anything you like outside of this
of course.
> The first decision is, Martinot as a special case to
> "save" Martinot or Martinot as a symbol or a cause
> that's time has come.
Regarding the first option, I have transmitted to Rémy the doc for
Alcor and CI, and personal messages / proposals from related people.
So I think it is his choice.
Regarding the second option, whether the time has come or not
business-wise, the fact is, there will be a judgement, and a
jurisprudence from this judgement (= there will be a tendency to
re-judge in the same way the next cases).
Jacques
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 09:59:51 MDT