• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

cryonics jurisprudence


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 randolfe

  • Guest
  • 439 posts
  • -1
  • Location:New York City/ Hoboken, N.J.

Posted 09 December 2003 - 05:13 AM


I really haven't thought about how immortality or even cryo-suspension might impact the law. Has anyone even thought about this in a serious sense?

I can only transpose some surprising findings I had as a cloning activist. For instance, even though we know Walt Disney isn't being preserved, what if he was? If revived, what claim would he have on his holdings? ( We used to wonder if a clone of walt could make some claim on the estate.)

If ten thousand people are suspended, what criteria should be used as to whom should be revived first?

If someone was revived and found to be profoundly disabled, should those reviving him be held responsible?

If life and aging were greatly extended, should the government have the right to forbid or strictly control reproduction? (The Raelian religion mandates that those who live the good life and qualify for cloning agree to give up their right to reproduce.)

These are just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Changed conditions require changed laws. Has there been any serious investigation/writing on this subject?

#2 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 09 December 2003 - 02:34 PM

Because they died before being frozen they have no claim as death is the clear legal demarcation. However we blur that distinction the first time we create a viable "rebirth" mechanism. The "legal " definition of death has been revisited and revamped multiple times throughout the 20th century in conjunction with improved applied medical technique.

From a legal perspective if they are frozen while still alive they would have a claim on issues of estate as they would be reanimated from suspension, not re-birthed from the dead. Though in all likelihood success for this technology will encourage society to define suspension as death for economic purposes as the taxes would still get paid along with the other bills. Death has never deterred the IRS before what makes you think they would be deterred by suspension?

I have said before the liability of a rebirth process is arcane and much greater than people who are interested in doing so generally examine, I ask instead: What is the interest to the living to return someone from the dead?

Oh sure we can all wax poetic about family members, Einstein, and Beethoven, but now understand it isn't about the exceptions, it is about the rule. How about Hitler or Attila the Hun? They would make interesting reanimation subjects too, but this sounds too much like Star Trek now.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users