From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Wed Aug 27 2003 - 11:29:31 MDT
Technotranscendence <neptune@superlink.net> writes:
Re: "State orders Cryonics Institute to stop freezing bodies"
> On Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:28 PM Horace Blimpo
> extroacnt77@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The Cryonics Institute has been ordered by
> > to stop freezing bodies.
> >
> > http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/sports/6623689.htm
>
> Sad, but what is to be done about this problem?
>
Depends, how big a problem is this actually? Is it more than
just publicity chasing political opportunism and media baiting
(or responding to media story bush beating) by CIS Director
Hollister or someone else I wonder? Disengaging the facts from
media speak is always something of an exercise and to be honest
I'm not really convinced its worth my taking the trouble in this case.
Is CI even looking for help or do they have everything under
control?
I am not a lawyer and I know less of the American legal system
than I do of the Australian system but a couple of points stick
out to me from this article and I recall a little backgrounding I did
on cryonics a few years ago.
First there is a paper accessible from the cryonics site entitled
"Declaration of Dr. Fahy", http://www.cryonics.org/fahy.html
where in California (not Michigan) "the cryonics people won
the case (in the Superior Court) and the coroner was enjoined
against interfering with the cryonics operation."
I don't know if California and the Michigan have the same or
similar (ie. essentially duplicated) Departments of Consumer
and Industry Services, but if they do, or if they are not notably
different on point then my guess is that the Californian decision
should at least have persuasive power in Michigan.
Second, I have not drawn out the legislation or bylaws that
Hollister is apparently invoking, (what would be the point he
seems to refer to no particular clauses or legal points -
what references are made are made by the reporters, whom
Hollister may or may not be accurately represented by.)
Hollister is quoted as "expressing concern that people from
around the world have invested their trust and finances into
this facility to preserve their bodies for eternity yet this facility
continues to knowingly operate outside the scope of the law".
Well what a sweetie. That he in the state of Michigan, should
be so multinational in his "concern".
"Operating outside the law" is not necessarily the same
as "operating illegally" though many political spinners and
media types would recognize that such a distinction may be
lost on many readers (and some reporters).
Consider if there is no legislation on the matter of having
a favourite color is one "operating outside the law" to have
a favourite color like blue? Does favoring blue mean one
is operating outside the law. Outside could mean the law
has no jurisdiction on the matter.
Third, unless the CI has said or Hollister and can show
that the CI institute has promised to "preserve ..bodies for
eternity" (a statement which strikes me as a little surprising
having had some brief email contacts with Bob Ettinger a
few years ago - he did not strike me as that foolish), then
the implied deception - to preserve for eternity - is very
much moot.
And if as the reporter in this link says
(STATE Orders Local Cryonics Institute To Close - WDIV, MI
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/2434929/detail.html )
"The facility, .... is being ordered to preserve the bodies
currently in its care; however, it will not be able to accept
any new contracts or bodies." How is such an "order" not
logically contradictory to the point against preservation being
made?
The same article goes on ...
"Hollister said CIS is encouraging the Cryonics Institute to
take the necessary steps to come in compliance with state law.
The Cryonics Institute may become licensed either as a funeral
establishment or registered as a cemetery; however, current law
would prohibit the Cryonics Institute from being able to do both.
The law stipulates that bodies cannot be prepared at the scene
of a cemetery, however the institute could make arrangements
for the bodies to be prepared in a licensed funeral home,
according to CIS."
If I was at CI I'd want to see exactly what the state law said
rather than read about it in general terms in the media. I imagine
Bob Ettinger has that well covered. I'd also suspect that wiggle
room would be left in the definition of separating cemetery from
funeral home (how much separation is enough etc?) and perhaps
even in the notion of what is a body - perhaps see the Fahy
argument above. Hollister and co could well be just "bending"
with the prevailing political wind or responding to media story
making and CI may well respond accordingly.
Of course, the media prefers stories that are more rather than
less dramatic and confrontational. And what better way to find
"news" in a quite period than to make it by muck raking on an
issue that seems to have become topical (with Sports Illustrated
and Ted whats-his-name - hey we're not all baseball fans).
I can see lots of potential solutions and courses of action
depending on details that are not included in the articles but
there are also *lots* of other things to spend time on, so
seriously how big is the problem?
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 27 2003 - 11:34:54 MDT