3 replies to this topic

[advancedatheist]

You need a user name and password to access the links:

http://www.regulatecryonics.org/

The Latest News:

Court Gives Custody of Grandmother's Frozen Head to Cryonics Company

Mary Robbins' Family Vows to Appeal, Wants Body Left Intact

By SARAH NETTER
March 1, 2010



http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=9978346

CRC Comment :


This particular ordeal is only one of many that have involved the unregulated practice of cryonics. The CRC has stated several times in the past and will continue to say it over and over again, situations such as the Robbins case cry out for regulation. Whether cryonics companies are in the right or in the wrong, in cases like this, families are still getting hurt. With that said we have to ask, when will State and/or Federal lawmakers step up to begin the process of strict regulation of these companies? It is the CRC's opinion that cryonics companies should fall under regulation similar to the funeral industry. In closing we’d like to say that our hearts goes out to Darlene Robbins and her family and that we are truly sorry that they have had to experience this situation.

Case presentations involving cryonics companies practicing their unregulated "science" within licensed healthcare facilities are currently being developed and will be presented soon to several interested associations. All presentations will be made available on this website. Thank you for your interest.



PURPOSE OF THE CRC

Welcome to the Coalition for the Regulation of Cryonics (CRC) website. The CRC initiative is to actively promote and lobby for the regulation of cryonics. Cryonics is the unregulated practice of freezing the body of a person who has died from a disease in hopes of restoring life at some future time when a cure for the disease has been developed.

NOTICE

The CRC is currently looking for the following professionals to join our cause.

Bioethicists
Attorneys
Physicians
Healthcare Professionals and Executives
Politicians
Lobbyist
Activists
Scientific Advisors

Also needed are established organizations (government or private) who have an interest in the regulation of cryonics.

If interested please send a letter of interest and credentials to:
info@regulatecryonics.org

Currently there are many individuals within the cryonics population who for various reasons wish to derail any attempt of regulation.
All interest letters will be reviewed and all credentials must be verifiable. Thanks for your understanding.

Edited by advancedatheist, 06 March 2010 - 09:49 PM.

[Mind]

I think it is more accurate to say that Cryonics supporters do not want to be regulated by or in the same manner as the funeral industry. Although some of the process of going into preservation is a little bit similar to what happens to a person who is going to be buried after legal death, the purpose and philosophy behind the 2 industries is of course exactly the opposite.

Hospitals deal with living, dead, and indeterminate state people all the time. They even store legally dead people for short periods of time, they share some protocols regarding the handling of human remains and tissues, yet they are not regulated BY the funeral industry (or its complete set of regulations).

The problem with Larry Johnson (if this is his effort) pushing for regulation of Cryonics is that it is known that he is openly hostile to the industry. I would bet 1000:1 he is hoping to regulate cryonics out of business and destroy all the people currently preserved.

[David Styles]

I think it is more accurate to say that Cryonics supporters do not want to be regulated by or in the same manner as the funeral industry. Although some of the process of going into preservation is a little bit similar to what happens to a person who is going to be buried after legal death, the purpose and philosophy behind the 2 industries is of course exactly the opposite.

Hospitals deal with living, dead, and indeterminate state people all the time. They even store legally dead people for short periods of time, they share some protocols regarding the handling of human remains and tissues, yet they are not regulated BY the funeral industry (or its complete set of regulations).

The problem with Larry Johnson (if this is his effort) pushing for regulation of Cryonics is that it is known that he is openly hostile to the industry. I would bet 1000:1 he is hoping to regulate cryonics out of business and destroy all the people currently preserved.

Exactly.

For what it's worth, the Cryonics Institute is already registered as a cemetary and is already regulated by the appropriate authorities in the state of Michigan. My understanding is that they have periodic inspections that must be passed, and they use an embalmer to do perfusion, but aside from that regulation doesn't cause any issues for them that I'm aware of.

Regulation per se isn't necessarily problematic for cryonics at all; being regulated by a purpose-made hostile regulatory commission would be nightmarish.

Edited by David Styles, 07 March 2010 - 04:41 PM.

[bgwowk]

Regulation of cryonics is a complex issue, in part because there is no consistent meaning of "regulation" in this context. For example, does regulation mean:

1) Government standards for the performance of cryonics procedures consistent with the objectives of cryonics as articulated by practitioners and scientists actually involved in cryonics?

* This would be similar to regulation of medicine in general, and is where regulation would and should go if significant numbers of people ever signed up for cryonics. However it's hard to see how this could be done properly with cost justification given the very, very small fraction of the citizenry who are personally interested in cryonics right now.

2) Regulation as Cryonics Institute (CI) is currently regulated?

* This is regulation for the sake of saying cryonics is regulated, not any actual monitoring or enforcement of standards of care. This is probably a good thing because cemetery/funeral regulators don't have any grasp of the technical objectives of cryonics or how to achieve them. To the extent authorities have regulated procedures in Michigan, that regulation has been detrimental. They prohibited CI from performing cryoprotective perfusion in their own facility, limiting perfusion technology and immediate post-perfusion cooling to what can be achieved in a funeral home. If a similar regulatory requirement where imposed in Arizona, the result would be disastrous because the perfusion and cooling infrastructure presently used by Alcor is too complex to be setup in a funeral home.

3) Regulation as Alcor was proposed to be regulated in 2004?

* The proposed 2004 legislation would have given authority over cryonics in Arizona to a regulatory agency who's leader has publicly stated that he regards neuropreservation as "mutilation." There should be no need to elaborate further on the likely effects of such a regulatory regime on the practice of cryonics.

In my opinion, two minimum prerequisites to development of proper regulation of cryonics are knowledge of the field and good faith. I don't believe any present regulation activists have either, nor do they have any interest in cryonics personally. There are other agendas at work.