13 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 15
From: Kevin Q. Brown
Subject: miscellaneous
Date: 1 Sep 1988

NJSA 52:17B-88.2
Dissection or autopsy: contrary to decedents' religious beliefs

Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no dissection
or autopsy shall be performed, in the absence of a compelling public
necessity, over the objection of a member of the deceased's immediate
family or in the absence thereof, a friend of the deceased that the
procedure is contrary to the religious belief of the decedent or if there
is an obvious reason to believe that a dissection or autopsy is contrary
to the decedent's religious beliefs.

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 29
From: Kevin Q. Brown
Subject: CSNY notes and legal status of cryonics
Date: 17 Oct 1988

(In particular, cryonics redefines death, and that can remarkably
change a person's legal status.)
In the Dora Kent case, the judge ruled this past February that the Riverside
County coroner did NOT have the right to autopsy Dora Kent (or any of the other
people in cryonic suspension under the care of ALCOR) because there was a
chance that she (and they) may someday be reanimated and an autopsy would
destroy that chance.

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 36
From: Kevin Q. Brown
Subject: freeze, wait, litigate
Date: 8 Nov 1988

"Freeze, Wait, Reanimate" is an old cryonics slogan (suitable for bumper
stickers and T-shirts). Now, Curtis Henderson, Esq. and Gerard Arthus (not yet
Esq), both of ALCOR and CSNY, are introducing "Freeze, Wait, Litigate" with
their new cryonics / life extension - oriented law practice. This is
particularly timely, since the law has had considerable influence on the fate
of cryonics in the last year alone (with the Dora Kent case and the recent
"right-to-cryonics" case for a California AIDS patient) and indications are
that this is only the beginning. Henderson and Arthus plan to "provide legal
and related technical services to the Cryonics movement for as low a cost as
possible" and also "establish legal entities to promote the retention and
dissemination of monies for research in Cryonics and ultimately life-extension
advancements".
Arthus has expressed interest in handling "right-to-die" cases. This may at
first sound strange since cryonics is intended to save lives, not end them,
but legal precedents supporting "right-to-die" cases perhaps can also be used
to support the goals of cryonics. If a (terminal) patient has a right to
actively terminate his or her life (to end unnecessary suffering), then
presumably cryonicists will be able to:
(1) schedule their cryonic suspension as one would schedule elective surgery,
(2) not have to allow needless brain damage (in addition to needless pain and
suffering) before cryonic suspension, and
(3) save money that otherwise would be (mis)spent on conventional
(ineffective and damaging) life support.
Here is why these three advantages are important:
(1) Scheduling cryonic suspension makes the logistics of suspension much
simpler and less error prone than the current method of waiting until
someone "drops dead" and then rushing to the scene and hoping that the
local coroners and medical personnel will cooperate. Even clearly
terminal patients in a hospital or nursing home sometimes hang on for
days, by which time the cryonic suspension team is exhausted from the
wait. Furthermore, such a patient may "pass away" during sleep and not
be noticed immediately, resulting in a less effective suspension.
This is particularly problematic in California because (by law) nursing
home patients are not allowed to have the kinds of electronic monitors
needed to promptly warn personnel when vital signs cease.
(2) People at risk for strokes and degenerative brain diseases currently
must wait for those strokes and brain diseases to sufficiently decimate
their brain to cause legal death before cryonic suspension can begin.
Unfortunately, by that time there might not be much to save.
(3) You have all heard that "you can't take it with you". Cryonicists see
this as just one more challenge, not an impossibility. However, even
if the laws (of perpetuity) prevent a person from saving money so that
it can be reclaimed upon reanimation, better uses can be made of that
money than prolonging one's suffering. (Supporting cryonics research
comes to mind ...)

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 172
Miron, as I understand it, here is an example of where we get into the
perniciousness of the law. Suicides have to be reported to the local
Coroner (or Medical Examiner), who has the legal muscle to perform an
autopsy against the wishes of the patient, family, and suspension
organization, resulting in a very poor suspension. Traditionally, giving
the Coroner (or Medical Examiner) this much power made sense because
(1) the death may have been a murder disguised as a suicide and the legal
authorities needed to be able to determine that, and (2) the person was
dead anyway, so an autopsy would not cause any more harm. The possibility
of reanimation from cryonic suspension changes the situation. From a
cryonicist's point of view, whenever a person who wants to be suspended
"dies" in a manner that legally requires notification of the Coroner (or
Medical Examiner), that Coroner (or Medical Examiner) has the legal right
to kill (via an autopsy) that person who desperately needs to be suspended.
Perhaps other people more familiar with the finer points of the law can
clarify this further. - KQB

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 1393
From: lubkin@apollo.hp.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 11:20:56 EST
Subject: CRYONICS Autopsies

To date, I have received one response to my request for suggested cryonics-
enabling legislation. While the current roundtable flaming is fascinating
(although it leaves me, as one who has little first-hand experience with the
principals, at a loss for whom to believe), the list's silence on an issue as
vital as legal blocks to cryonics dismays me.

>From my research on cryonics law (about which I will say more in another
posting) it seems that perhaps our biggest problem is the risk of autopsy.
Most or all states basically give the medical examiner (and often others as
well) the right to order an autopsy whenever they want. I have not yet found
any states with statutes that allow an individual or their family to stop
this. In the cases I've seen so far, when a family has tried to block a
State-ordered autopsy, they have lost.

Clearly, the argument is between the needs for public safety (after death by
violence or unknown causes), public health (after death by infectious disease
or unknown causes), or public good (after death by anything the examiner
thinks is interesting) and the rights of the individual to control his person.

Can people think of ways to strengthen the arguments for a right to block an
autopsy? Even in New Hampshire, it would be pointless to introduce
legislation. The statist case is just too strong.

Another approach: are there some less controversial steps we could advocate
that would push us closer to where such legislation could pass?


-- David Lubkin.

========================= lubkin@apollo.hp.com =========================
Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave.
-- William Pitt, 1763

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 1396
Date: 04 Dec 92 02:07:02 EST
From: Charles Platt <71042.3557@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: CRYONICS

Re:Autopsies

I appreciate Mr. Lubkin's concern about the threat of
autopsy. I'm sure we all share it. But if he hasn't had any
suggestions about "What to do," this is surely because no one
knows what to do. Coroners have huge amounts of discretionary
power, and have been known to violate strong (recognized)
religious beliefs expressed vehemently by family members. Why
should cryonicists think they have a better chance of
changing the status quo than, say, orthodox Jews?

Since a fundamental tenet is that "dead" people have no human
rights, I see no basis be for any legal argument in favor of
restricting the activities of coroners. It seems to me that
the first step is to achieve a reallignment of public
attitudes toward death. After that, there should be much more
hope for a revision of the law (though the law usually lags
behind public opinion by at least a decade). In short, I
think efforts to revise the law are probably futile at this
point, and popularizing cryonics is the number-one job.
However, since I know much more about popularizing things
than I do about fighting legal battles, I am obviously
biased.

Ralph Merkle told me that he has made contact with his local
coroner on a personal basis and has established that the man
prefers not to autopsy. I would think that this kind of
personal contact, if pursued diplomatically, is worth a lot
more than a legal offensive which is liable to create enemies
and negate any possibility of receiving special favors.

Clearly, all the above statements are speculative.

--Charles Platt

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 1617
From: lubkin@apollo.hp.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 12:47:11 EST
Subject: CRYONICS Anti-autopsy allies

Now that the Alcor feuding is quieting down, maybe I can get some
interest stirred in legislative action. My last posting on this
issue was in the middle of the frenzy and was largely ignored.

And while I have great respect for and interest in research on
cryoprotectants, it seems to me that the most severe risks we face
are from the medical and legal communities -- autopsies, ischemic
damage due to delayed biostasis protocols due to medical or legal
opposition, etc. -- and I'm dismayed that there's not more interest
in directly tackling the problem (although the recent actions and
discussions on the PR front are wonderful indirect steps).

Anyway --

Does anyone on the list have any details on the two competing religious
freedom acts? Over on the Libertarian lists people are debating
supporting the better of the two, but no one has said anything useful
about what they are.

It seems to me that the best way to block autopsies is through the
religious freedom angle. Some states (including New Jersey?) in fact
already have a (partial) religious block on autopsy available.
Unfortunately, this right is neither absolute nor universal.

I don't think enough people care about the issue for us to move for
legislation head-on, but with one of these general religious freedom
acts, we may get what we want as a consequence of the act when it gets
interpreted in the courts.

It also might fall out that any interference with a suspension by legal
or medical authorities will become an actionable violation of civil
rights.

So we should lend our support to the effort, and maybe make some friends
in the religious world. Instead of allying ourselves with the suicide
rights people (who, like us, want to control their own bodies, but are
deathist), perhaps we should look to their opponents. Convince people
who think suicide is a sin that anything but cryonics IS suicide.
(Anyone want to buy Pope John Paul a gift subscription to CRYONICS :-> ? )

-- David Lubkin.

PS Do the Venturists still claim to be a church / religion ?

[thefirstimmortal]

[ Dave, FYI: the Society For Venturism is a religious, scientific, and
educational 501©(3) tax exempt organization (but not a church).
They distribute wallet cards titled "Certificate of Religious Belief"
with the text:
"Pursuant to Section 27491.43 of the government code of the state
of California, I hereby execute this certificate of religious
belief:
My religious belief compels me to oppose any postmortem procedure,
dissection, or autopsy which would in any way delay, impede, or
prevent the cryonic preservation of my human remains."
It then has blank fields for name, date, signature, and address for
the declarer and two witnesses.
Also, the information I have on legal support for religious objection
against autopsy in New Jersey is in message #15 (yes, fifteen) from
Sept. 1, 1988, which you can retrieve by sending email to me with the
Subject line "CRYOMSG 15". - KQB ]

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 2500
From: whscad1!kqb (Kevin Q Brown +1 201 386 7344)
Subject: CRYONICS Legal Protection from Autopsy

One of the major risks for a cryonic suspension patient is the
threat of autopsy. If the local Coroner or Medical Examiner
determines that an autopsy must be done on a person (after legal
death, of course), it is difficult to prevent, and the "leavings"
remaining after an autopsy generally leave little hope for revival.
(Alcor did succeed in preventing a full autopsy, but, as I recall,
it required a sympathetic judge, and one cannot count on having a
sympathetic judge readily available.)

Messages 15 1393 1396 1401 1617 concern potential legal protections
from autopsies, including the "Certificate of Religious Belief"
forbidding autopsy that the Venturists distribute. Alvin Steinberg,
of Alcor New York, recently pointed out that we now have greater
legal support for the religious objection to autopsy. That support
cames from the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993", which was
passed on Nov. 16 of this year and applies to all government bodies
and officials within the USA.

Although this Act still allows a government official to "substantially
burden a person's exercise of religion" (i.e. do an autopsy) when there
is a "compelling state interest":
(a) it requires the government to *demonstrate* that "compelling state
interest" rather than proceeding without any such justification,
and
(b) it requires the government to use "the least restrictive means
of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
This could make the difference between a viable suspension and
freezing chopped meat.

For the full text of that law (only about 6K bytes), send email to
me with the Subject line "CRYOMSG 2500.1".

Kevin Q. Brown
INTERNET kqb@whscad1.att.com
or kevin_q_brown@att.com

[thefirstimmortal]

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT OF 1993


Public Law 103-141 - Nov. 16, 1993
103d Congress

An Act
To protect the free exercise of religion

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title.
This Act may be cited as the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993".

Sec. 2. Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purposes.
(a) Findings. - The Congress finds that -
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of
religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in
the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious exercise as
surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise
without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the
Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that
the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed
by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal
court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances
between religious liberty and competing prior governmental
interests.
(b) Purposes - The purposes of this Act are -
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application
in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially
burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious
exercise is substantially burdened by government.

Sec. 3. Free Exercise of Religion Protected.
(a) In General - Government shall not substantially burden a person's
exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of
general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception - Government may substantially burden a person's
exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application
of the burden to the person -
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.
© Judicial Relief - A person whose religious exercise has been
burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation
as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain
appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a
claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the
general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Sec. 4. Attorneys Fees.
(a) Judicial Proceedings - Section 722 of the Revised Statutes
(42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by inserting "the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993," before "or title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964".
(b) Administrative Proceedings - Section 504(b)(1)© of title 5,
United States Code, is amended -
(1) by striking "and" at the end of clause (ii);
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (iii) and
inserting ", and"; and
(3) by inserting "(iv) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of
1993;" after clause (iii).

Sec. 5. Definitions.
As used in this Act -
(1) the term "government" includes a branch, department, agency,
instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under
color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision
of a State;
(2) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession
of the United States;
(3) the term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward
with the evidence and of persuasion; and
(4) the term "exercise of religion" means the exercise of religion
under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Sec. 6. Applicability.
(a) In General - This Act applies to all Federal and State law, and
the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise,
and whether adopted before or after the enactment of this Act.
(b) Rule of Construction - Federal statutory law adopted after the
date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act unless
such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to
this Act.
© Religious Belief Unaffected - Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to authorize any government to burden any religious
belief.

Sec. 7. Establishment Clause Unaffected.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, or
in any other way address that portion of the First Amendment
prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion
(referred to in this section as the "Establishment Clause").
Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the
extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not
constitute a violation of this Act. As used in this section,
the term "granting", used with respect to government funding,
benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of
government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

Approved November 16, 1993

Legislative History - H.R. 1308 (S. 578)
House Reports: No. 103-88 (Comm. on the Judiciary)
Senate Reports: No. 103-111 accompanying S. 578 (Comm. on the Judiciary)
Congressional Record: Vol. 139 (1993):
May 11, considered and passed House.
Oct. 26, 27, S. 578 considered in Senate; H.R. 1308 amended, passed in lieu.
Nov. 3, House concurred in Senate amendment.
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 29 (1993):
Nov. 16, Presidential remarks.

[thefirstimmortal]

III. RELIGIOUS OBJECTION TO AUTOPSY

California Government Code, 27491.43. Original 1984.

This is an unusual but very helpful law which I have so far found (in
differing versions) only in California, New York, and New Jersey. It
mandates that if the coroner is preparing to perform an autopsy or
otherwise remove tissue from a decedent, and the coroner has "received a
certificate of religious belief, executed by the decedent as provided in
subdivision (b), that the procedure would be contrary to his or her
religious belief, the coroner shall not perform that procedure on the body
of the decedent."

If the coroner is told that such a document exists, it must be
produced within 48 hours. Several rules are given for the form of the
certificate. Then two exceptions: © "Notwithstanding the existence of
a certificate, the coroner may at any time perform an autopsy or any other
procedure if he or she has a reasonable suspicion that the death was
caused by the criminal act of another or by a contagious disease
constituting a public health hazard." (d, paraphrased) A court may
overrule the certificate if such action is in the public interest or if it
is determined that the certificate was not properly executed.

Interestingly, the certifier does not have to espouse a particular
religion.

The language in the New York and New Jersey statutes are somewhat
different, but the effect is about the same. This law has great potential
for preventing many autopsies for suspension patients, and we strongly
encourage all cryonicists residing in these three states to execute the
appropriate forms immediately. Alcor has these forms available for its
members.

Arizona does not have this law yet; but we hope to encourage such a
movement among religious groups here. Such a law in all fifty states
would prevent autopsies in many suspension cases (heart attacks, for
instance).

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 3463
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 01:13:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>
Subject: CRYONICS:Autopsies in Arkansas


Recently, in the middle of a Usenet news group which has nothing to do
with cryonics, I saw mention that one of Clinton's last acts as governor
of Arkansas was to sign a bill into law which removes the legal need for
an autopsy after suicide.

I don't know if this is true, or how individual medical examiners will
repond to it, but it might mean that Arkansas is now a relatively benign
place for cryonics patients who wish to terminate their lives because of
incurable medical conditions and prefer not to have to deprive themselves
of food and fluids (the usual method imposed by the need to avoid an
autopsy).

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 4062
From: Ettinger@aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 18:42:05 -0500
Subject: Cosenza's question

We will never give up a patient, or allow
endangerment of a patient, willingly or easily. At the same time, we are
realists, and keep the safety of ALL our patients in mind, which includes the
viability of the organization.

If we are ever compelled by legal process to
surrender a patient for autopsy, after as much legal resistance as we can
afford--and we have excellent lawyers--then we will do it (and of course try
to keep the autopsy as limited and brief as possible). (We recall that Alcor
not long ago was forced to relinquish a patient when a relative successfully
sued.)

[drus]

Autopsy is the real problem! It is the biggest detriment to us as cryonicists. I would love to see a cryonics law passed that specifically addresses this issue for us. Perhaps something along the lines of - 'toxicology only', or 'no touching the brain', or 'limited to such and such, with a specified time limit of under 60 mins'....or even something more optimistic like - cryonicists can sign a legal waiver exempting them from autopsy all together regardless of circumstances of death. After all, there are only about 2000 of us (at present) in a population of over 6 billion. Since a complete and thorough autopsy would almost render cryonic suspension pointless due to the level of damage it causes, i see autopsy as cryonics enemy number one, it seems to me like it might be a worthwhile legal pursuit.