I have had an interesting email dialog with Representative Robert Stump, from the Arizona State Legislature, regarding his recently introduced bill HB2637, which gives regulatory authority for storage of human remains (over 5 years) to the state funeral board. First, I must admit to perhaps sticking my nose into an affair that is not entirely my business. Secondly, I will also stipulate that I do not have all the information about the exact situation in Arizona, and remain a distant, perhaps poorly informed, observer of what is going on. Still, I feel I should share this information in order to promote discussion about the situation in North America. I only hope that I have not made any factual errors.
On Feb 22, I sent this:
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Representative Stump,
I'm sure your mailbox is overflowing with comments, complaints, or even protests over HB2637. I have read it myself, in a cursory fashion, and understand the eventual result, but perhaps not the intent.
I'm a 2nd generation Arizonian.. My father was born in Tuscon in 1929, I was born in Idaho in 1958, and now I live in Canada. It has been in my mind for some years to move to Arizona, to enjoy the fine weather, and to also be near Alcor in Scottsdale. I am not an Alcor member. I have considered it, and indeed, am still considering it. The technology involved in cryopreservation is far from proven, but I have been watching and following their efforts to improve the cryopreservation process. If at some point, it seems to offer a reasonable level of effectiveness at preserving information in a human brain, then I will probably sign up for their services. In my personal judgement, the probable cost/benefit ratio that will make it worthwhile has not yet been reached. But I expect that eventually, it will.
But HB2637 may prevent or delay that point. In all probability, passage of HB2637 will just force the relocation of Alcor to a nearby state, such as Nevada or New Mexico. This will be expensive, and will risk damage to the frozen remains already in storage. I will not label them as "patients" as many cryonicists do, since this may well be a gross exaggeration of the potential possibilities. But it seems reasonable to me, that with advances in technology, someday the term may be well applied.
If someday Alcor succeeds in their quest, it would be a shame if the history of Alcor includes an unhappy chapter where they were chased from Arizona by legislative action. You would not be remembered kindly by history, in this event.
I think that the directors of Alcor are amenable to regulatory oversight, as long as it does not compromise their goals. Indeed, I would feel better if the financial aspects of the trusts at Alcor were governed more transparently, with regulatory inspection to prevent financial mismanagement.
Given the costs of the services at Alcor, a little government review to prevent fraud, theft, or misapplication of funds wouldn't be a bad thing.
Why not talk to them?
Sincerely
John McCluskey
-----------------------------------------------------
The very next day, while reading Rick Potvins Cryonet Cafe, I read Rep. Stump's reply to Mike Latorra, where he refutes some of the assertions about HB2637, and in particular disputes the assertion that Alcor had been left out of the loop in the formation of the bill.
http://www.network54...geid=1077535175This to me was crucial, since Alcor asserts "The sunrise process was not followed, and Alcor was not notified of the stakeholder meetings even though we are the target for which the proposed legislation was drafted". It's clear that their is a difference of opinion here on the timeline and notifications, but in any event, after reading a couple more posts on the Cryonet Cafe from Alcor members who are not happy with Alcor (
http://www.network54...geid=1077556547 and Rick's reply to it), I simply changed my mind about HB2637. Or rather, I came to the conclusion that Alcor needed a little regulation, because the Ted Williams affair was just a complete f*ckup. So I wrote a retraction to Rep. Stump.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rep. Stump,
Late on Sunday I sent you an email, basically deploring the existence of HB2637. Today, after reading a post of an email reply you sent to Mike Latorra, I have reversed my position. I now support HB2637.
I was somehow led to believe that Alcor had been taken by surprise by HB2637, and had not participated in the stakeholder meetings. Furthermore, evidence of legislative intent is found in the Arizona Capital Times on Sept 29, 2003.
Like in Michigan, New York, and Florida, cryonics organizations must be given governmental oversight at some level to prevent such problems such as the infamous Ted Williams affair. I do not think that mutilation of the body is an issue (far worse occurs at any medical school, I am sure), but the issue of consent in Mr. Williams case seems to be in doubt. As I recall, Mr. Williams had not signed the standard consent forms, but only affixed his signature to a scrap of paper containing a vague intention. The issue of boils down to this: Who has the right to decide on cryonics preservation? Family members? The person being preserved? The intentions of the deceased must be crystal clear, I think, perhaps even to the point that they must be publicly available.
I think that HB2637 could be improved, since as it is written now, there seems to be no guarantee that the funeral board will not effectively regulate Alcor out of business when the jurisdiction comes into effect. This, you certainly know by now, is causing widespread panic and fear in the cryonics community, due to certain public statements by Rudy Thomas. Oil can very easily be spread on these troubled waters, if the nature of the funeral board regulation were made clearer.
I apologize for filling your email in-box with yet another message to be read, but my conscience troubled me, after I saw how I had been misled by the hue & cry surrounding HB2637.
you have my best regards, Sir,
John McCluskey
------------------------------------------------
This got a reply:
------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. McClusky:
I very much appreciate your kind reply and your consideration of my comments.
Would you object if I shared your message with other members of the Legislature?
Again, thanks.
All the best,
Representative Bob Stump
Arizona House of Representatives
District 9
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: (602) 542-5413
http://www.azleg.sta...sp?Member_ID=85 ------------------------------------------------
Certainly, as long as nothing is taken out of context. I'd prefer if both emails were presented together, to provide better context. However, the phrase "The issue of boils down to this" should actually read: "The issue of consent boils down to this"
It is my sincere hope that cryonic storage becomes an accepted alternative to cremation, burial, or medical donation. Benign government regulation and the consequent consumer protection may indeed help bring this about.
best regards,
John McCluskey
------------------------------------------------
Thank you again for your integrity.
All the best,
Representative Bob Stump
Arizona House of Representatives
District 9
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: (602) 542-5413
http://www.azleg.sta...sp?Member_ID=85 ------------------------------------------------
My final email (with no answer from Rep. Stump at this time)
------------------------------------------------
Just to let you know, I'm going to post those two emails (my original comments, and the retraction) on some cryonics email lists. I think that resisting government regulation is blind and stupid, and it's clear that some sort of entente like the Michigan agreement is needed. The Cryonics Institute (run by Robert Ettinger) is all the stronger for it, and their membership is now rumored to surpass the Alcor membership. Their cryonics procedures are performed in a licensed funeral home, under the supervision of a licensed funeral director. See this webpage, which describes the Michigan agreement:
http://www.network54...geid=1076617804It's unfortunate that the technical procedures that the Cryonics Institute are using are less advanced than Alcor (see discussions under vitrification), but bringing them under the supervision of the funeral board seems to have improved their financial firewalls, forcing the creation of separate trust funds.
Bringing cryonics in Arizona under supervision of the funeral board will not necessarily end the friction, however. By the very nature of the goal sought (preserving information in the brain), the optimal place for performing the preparation procedure (perfusion of cryoprotectants along with cooling) is done in a hospital setting, as soon as possible after legal death is declared. There is intense pressure to declare the state of death as soon as possible, since lack of oxygen to the brain causes irreversible damage, with unknown consequences for future treatment. I predict that as the technology advances, and the likelihood of successful treatment rises, that eventually the requirement for a legal state of death will become obsolete. But we are far from that point, of course.
I'd like to point out that if the funeral board will accede to permitting the perfusion procedure in a hospital, at the point of legal death, then the cryonicists will all go home, convinced that they have won a great victory. It might even put the Cryonics Institute in Michigan at a severe disadvantage, since the services in Arizona would be demonstrably superior.
I would like to thank you for your work on this bill, since it is bringing many serious issues to light. I regret that I am not yet an Arizona voter, although I hope to rectify this in the next few years. :-)
you have my best regards,
John McCluskey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it. In my opinion, Alcor precipitated this whole mess by ignoring the requirements of the UAGA in the Ted Willams case and now they are in a fair amount of trouble. Rep. Stump is notably silent about what the Funeral Board will do if given regulatory power over Alcor, and I'm beginning to suspect that he will disclaim all responsibility for what they might do in the future.
