The family who stopped the preservation of a signed up member should be sued, I think.

The family who stopped the preservation of a signed up member should be sued, I think.

Rick [CASE: FLORIDA OCT.04]
Rick [CASE: FLORIDA OCT.04]

November 29th, 2004, 1:48 pm #1

It seems to me that the family members who destroyed the integrity of the member's brain-- a member who clearly expressed their wishes-- should be sued.

I think Alcor ought to be reporting on thier cases in a more timely manner. It's almost December and I have very little idea of when we'll see the details on this botched FL cryonics case pusblished, despite the promises.

I'd like to know why so many cases are shielded behind the confidentiality rules. Where are the real cryonicists? Real cryonicists don't ask for confidentiality in my view. Part of the problem of investigating the details of the FL October Alcor case is that the cryopatient themselves did not ensure that their case would be public. Look where it got him.

Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

November 30th, 2004, 4:41 pm #2

As a fellow cryonaut, that guy in FL got legally abused and suffered a dramatic molecular consequence. The family tried to override his arrangements. Give me one good reason why we should "NOT" sue that family. Anyone?
Quote
Share

Joined: October 8th, 2004, 4:23 pm

November 30th, 2004, 8:10 pm #3

I agree, if that's what this person wanted and it can be proven it should have stood.

But who would sue? Alcor members? Class-action suit by cryonogists? Who are you going to sue, the family?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 30th, 2004, 8:58 pm #4

It just seems like, in this age of litigation, somebody ought to be sued by somebody. The cryonics arrangement was a bona fide legal arrangement, and it was very very time senstive. And some ******* ****ed it up. Whoever that ******* is should be sued to kingdom come.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 8th, 2004, 4:23 pm

December 1st, 2004, 4:00 pm #5

It seems to me that the family members who destroyed the integrity of the member's brain-- a member who clearly expressed their wishes-- should be sued.

I think Alcor ought to be reporting on thier cases in a more timely manner. It's almost December and I have very little idea of when we'll see the details on this botched FL cryonics case pusblished, despite the promises.

I'd like to know why so many cases are shielded behind the confidentiality rules. Where are the real cryonicists? Real cryonicists don't ask for confidentiality in my view. Part of the problem of investigating the details of the FL October Alcor case is that the cryopatient themselves did not ensure that their case would be public. Look where it got him.
If a majority of children can legally freeze a parent against their wishes, doesn't that infer that a majority of family members could overturn a person's desire for cryonics?

There's something to ponder...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

December 1st, 2004, 4:15 pm #6

....because in the FL Oct Alcor case, the family delayed the cryonics treatment thus rendering it useless compared to what it should have been. In fact, what you just suggested is, then, effectively true. Maybe that's why so many cases are confidential. Because exposure of one's plans to family members will almost always be an invitation to a legal challenge, thus delaying a time sensitive treatment. We already are well aware that a requirement for autopsy can nullify cryonics plans. I've heard that family challenges are the biggest problem in cryonics next only to autopsies. You might be onto something there.
Quote
Like
Share