Moose, what is your understanding of our status at this point?

Moose, what is your understanding of our status at this point?

Rick
Rick

March 13th, 2004, 5:29 pm #1

Thanks.
Quote
Share

Non E. Moose
Non E. Moose

March 14th, 2004, 2:43 am #2

I've been a little busy, and just got to listen to the mp3 of the hearing and voice votes. When I finished with that, there was Joe Waynick's excellent post from Alcor. I think that if Alcor keeps getting good professional advice, they have the leadership to get the legislation they need to survive and on terms consistent with what they perceive they need.

Even if they get favorable legislation, though, they will next be faced with the regulatory challenges. No matter how many restrictions to regulations are included in the law, government bureaucracies will find ways to do what they want. Although the Funeral Board may sound amicable this week, that could turn quickly once they get laws to back them up.

Chief among the things Alcor needs to watch out for are restrictions on its procedures and materials used (as well as requirements for using procedures and materials that would be adverse to Alcor's cryopreservation methods), and arbitrary credentialling of its practitioners (alluded to by one of the legislators) by people who don't really understand where cryonics is at. It is good to see that some of the amendments described by Joe try to address some of these issues.

Having said that, I must now mention, as a prospective member of some cryonics organization in the future, that Alcor will be well advised to increase its credibility by straightening up its act in a number of areas. A couple come readily to mind.

1) If there were any just cause for Alcor being regulated, it is its seeming inability to be financially responsible in its fiduciary duty to its members, by not making outrageous decisions such as taking on last-minute unfunded celebrity cases. The membership ends up paying for these one way or the other, and surely those who think about them at all, resent the preferential treatment given. Clearly, the "publicity value" argument for them, doesn't hold, unless negative publicity is sought. Unfortunately, regulatory agencies are likely to pass right over such flagrant injustices and consider them within the latitude of operating policies, and instead do something else like require a certain type of embalming fluid.

2) Don't ever again even think of getting involved with administering medications or procedures that are illegal to administer to a living person, prior to pronouncement of death.

Those who are in the spotlight must make extra effort to ensure their noses look clean.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 14th, 2004, 3:50 am #3


How do you know it is "unfunded"...per conjecture.
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

March 14th, 2004, 4:32 am #4

...a $111,000 conjecture on the balance sheet under Accounts Payable. Or is that amount pertaining to something else that hasn't been disclosed? Your turn.
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

March 14th, 2004, 4:33 am #5

How do you know it is "unfunded"...per conjecture.
...a $111,000 conjecture on the balance sheet under Accounts Payable. Or is that amount pertaining to something else that hasn't been disclosed? Your turn.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 14th, 2004, 4:58 am #6

...a $111,000 conjecture on the balance sheet under Accounts Payable. Or is that amount pertaining to something else that hasn't been disclosed? Your turn.
You have no idea what that AR is related to, and an AR is not the same thing as an unfunded suspension. Indeed, if they were knowingly taking an unfunded person, it would not appear as an AR. Alcor has before...3 unfunded "charity cases" from another org in the early 80's, and no "AR" showed up.

And all this is irrelevant, since you don't know what the line you refer to is for.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

March 14th, 2004, 5:21 am #7

...a $111,000 conjecture on the balance sheet under Accounts Payable. Or is that amount pertaining to something else that hasn't been disclosed? Your turn.
You have no idea what that AR is related to, and an AR is not the same thing as an unfunded suspension. Indeed, if they were knowingly taking an unfunded person, it would not appear as an AR. Alcor has before...3 unfunded "charity cases" from another org in the early 80's, and no "AR" showed up.

And all this is irrelevant, since you don't know what the line you refer to is for.
Quote
Share

Non E. Moose
Non E. Moose

March 14th, 2004, 5:33 am #8

You have no idea what that AR is related to, and an AR is not the same thing as an unfunded suspension. Indeed, if they were knowingly taking an unfunded person, it would not appear as an AR. Alcor has before...3 unfunded "charity cases" from another org in the early 80's, and no "AR" showed up.

And all this is irrelevant, since you don't know what the line you refer to is for.
3) Disclose to the membership exactly what the $111K item is. Even if not to the public, the members have a right to know how Alcor is spending their money. And if it is for an unfunded suspension, said suspendee should already have lost any rights to anonymity.

4) Stop acting like a no-see/no-hear/no-speak monkey regarding who is cryopreserved at Alcor, when external parties such as family members and lawyers have already blown the cover. This should be a provision in the signup agreement every new member agrees to - confidentiality has its practical limits. And it would encourage members to get their "family houses" in order before it becomes a post-suspension (known in some circles as post-mortem) issue.


Quote
Share

lurker
lurker

March 14th, 2004, 5:23 pm #9

...a $111,000 conjecture on the balance sheet under Accounts Payable. Or is that amount pertaining to something else that hasn't been disclosed? Your turn.
Were any of you aware that John Henry filed a claim for $175,000 against his father's estate in order to pay Alcor? His claim was filed in October 2002 in the Circuit Court of Citrus County, Florida, yet we know that the bill remained unpaid as recently as summer 2003.

Now, that could mean two things:
(1) the estate refused to pay on John Henry's claim; or
(2) the estate paid the claim, and John Henry pocketed the $175,000 for his own purposes without paying Alcor.

Either way, I think it is safe to assume that the $111,000 which John Henry owed to Alcor on his father's suspension remained unpaid - at least until John Henry died. Perhaps John Henry's estate will be able to cover John Henry's suspension and the outstanding balance on Ted's.
Quote
Share

Ray
Ray

March 14th, 2004, 9:05 pm #10

So lurker, you seem to be all up to date with all the legal wrangling and such. What do you think of Johnson's attack on cryonics and all of his allegations there of?
Quote
Share