29 replies to this topic

[Berserker]

Hi, I read a lot about cryonics and was thinking a lot about it...I don’t know how someone cant spent so much money in something with such a little regulation. If you sing up for cryonics, when the cryonics company has your body, they can do whatever they want with your body. As you are dead they can do whatever they want with your body, as you are not a person anymore.
If there is a problem, they can cremate your body or do whatever they want, and none will no about, as there is not regulation at all. How do you know that there are actually bodies in the alcor facilities? They can have nothing there, but because there is not regulation none will ever know. I would be surprise if one day they investigate alcor and they find out that there are nothing there and that they cremated all the bodies. I would support cryonics with much more regulation, but no with the current regulation...

There are no balances with the money either, so they can do whatever they want with the money. Don’t you realise? You die, and they have your body to do whatever they want with it…they also have your money. As you are dead you don’t have right anymore, and because of the king of contract that you sing and no regulation as all you family really don know what happened with your body
Its I big business and that’s why alcor doesn’t want any regulation about it, so they can do whatever they want.

How do you know that they actually perform Project cryonics?
How o you know what they really do with the “patients”?
How do you know hat they actually do with the money?

You don’t knot it without regulation!!

Edited by Berserker, 29 November 2009 - 12:42 PM.

[forever freedom]

Its I big business and that’s why alcor doesn’t want any regulation about it, so they can do whatever they want.

Alcor doesn't want regulation for the same reason every business doesn't want regulation: regulation strangles markets and kills businesses.

How do you know that they actually perform Project cryonics?
How o you know what they really do with the “patients”?
How do you know hat they actually do with the money?

You don’t knot it without regulation!!

First, companies like Alcor and CI believe in cryonics, they're not some evil companies pretending to freeze bodies but actually using them to do their weekend barbecues. This first reason alone should be enough.. but let's go to the second: they have reputations. If something as terrible as this would ever come out, they're out of the business. The risk would be too high. I'd write more but i'm out of time.


Geez, i can't believe how paranoid some people area.. totally out of touch with reality.

[Berserker]

No, sorry but I thing that in this case you are out of touch with reality.. The argument of these people believe in cryonics is not enough, how do you know they really believe in cryonics? If they sing for cryonics, that doesn’t mean anything.
And regulation doest kill business, more transparently is necessary in cryonics; otherwise people don’t know what’s going on. Your argument is “just believe in alcor, they are good guys, they believe in cryonics as well and they will take care of you”

How can you prove that? Regulation is necessary and also is going to be better for cryonics in the long term.

[John Schloendorn]

Haha, Mate, in those countries where government regulators are in charge of cryonics, cryonics is outlawed!

[TheFountain]

Haha, Mate, in those countries where government regulators are in charge of cryonics, cryonics is outlawed!

Good point, but he has one as well. Maybe an intra-associated panel is needed, kind of like a congress of cryonics. Not necessarily government regulation but a person is appointed from each cryonics company to form this panel of overseers. They simply exist to prove to one another under some mutual cryonics regulatory act that they are doing what is stipulated in their contracts. This could entail checking bodies, making sure extraneous power generators are installed in the event of a black out and stuff like this.

[Berserker]

Haha, Mate, in those countries where government regulators are in charge of cryonics, cryonics is outlawed!

Good point, but he has one as well. Maybe an intra-associated panel is needed, kind of like a congress of cryonics. Not necessarily government regulation but a person is appointed from each cryonics company to form this panel of overseers. They simply exist to prove to one another under some mutual cryonics regulatory act that they are doing what is stipulated in their contracts. This could entail checking bodies, making sure extraneous power generators are installed in the event of a black out and stuff like this.

Exactly, that’s what I am looking for. If you are going to pay 150.000 dollars for a service, you must be sure that the service works properly. With the current regulation you don’t know where the money goes, you even don’t really know what they do with the bodies. Imagine if alcor have a problem with a body, will they tell it to anyone? No, they just can cremate the body and nobody will know about it. They just can do whoever they want without telling anyone. How do you know something like this never happened before? Ohh yes, they believe in cryonics as well, they are the good guys, they will always do the better thing for you!
No, I think that if you are going to pay for a service, you must ensure that the service is working properly.

[Cyberbrain]

Regardless of how careful and dedicated Alcor and CI are, I'd want (when I die) for my cryopreservation to be filmed and lawyers (or some eye witness) to be present. I would also like guarantee that my body could be checked upon to see if its still there over time (say some embedded sensor) and I'd also like insurance of the protection of my body if some disaster happens or if say some legal dispute (like from family members) want to bury me.

[KalaBeth]

well if regulation="ensuring the service is working properly" I might tend to agree.

In practice, it doesn't seem to be working out that way, as John mentioned.

Heck, judging from their history and signup documents, Alcor has problems enough trying to get the families of their clients - all with good reason to have their best interests at heart - to understand the difference between "educated gamble" and "scam." I'm not overly optimistic about leaving the future of the industry in the hands of politicians, any of which have more to gain by building up a "I'm for protecting your desperate gramma" reputation on an "Unsafe at any Temperature" crusade.

At least until those in the cryo industry can do a nueropreservation on an animal and bring it back, proving to the world that it's no scam or pipe dream - I think the kind of regulation we're bound to get* will do a heck of a lot more to destroy the industry than it would to ensure its safety.

But an industry standards NGO? While I'm not certain it's as necessary in the days when one whistleblower can have the whole story out on the net in an hour and a half, it might be workable.












============
*... are laws and sausage

[Berserker]

Regardless of how careful and dedicated Alcor and CI are, I'd want (when I die) for my cryopreservation to be filmed and lawyers (or some eye witness) to be present. I would also like guarantee that my body could be checked upon to see if its still there over time (say some embedded sensor) and I'd also like insurance of the protection of my body if some disaster happens or if say some legal dispute (like from family members) want to bury me.

The only problem with this is that when you die you lost all your rights, so they can do whatever they want to do, thats why regulate cryonics is not going to be possible, unless someone prove that it can work.

[KalaBeth]

No, it's entirely possible, it's just not necessarily desirable.
All manner of regulation exists concerning the disposition of human remains. Adding a few more lines to that code would be entirely possible. And it's not like (in the US) Congress hasn't been willing already to legislate about things that don't exist yet or of which they're personally ignorant.

What I doubt though is that once you open that to legislative debate they you'll get the result you want. At least going by the news shows and popular belief right now, cryonics legislation is far more likely to be of the "you can't do it, they're all scammers preying on rich people who want to take it with them, the bastards" variety than of "you have to do it in X,Y, and Z a manner."

.. hence the results John speaks of.

That said... existing contract law already covers your contract with a provider, and if they really did the things you mention (toss the bodies and pocket the money) they'd be toast as soon as the fraud was uncovered. And if the Ted Williams fiasco proves anything, it's that if they actually did commit fraud, they'd be likely to be caught and open to crippling breach of contract suits from your next of kin. Not to mention having a hard time attracting new clients.

If and when public opinion shifts from cryonics being weird and salacious to a legitimate last-ditch medical effort, then opening the regulation can of worms might actually provide protection. Until then, if could be - quite literally - suicide.

The only problem with this is that when you die you lost all your rights, so they can do whatever they want to do, thats why regulate cryonics is not going to be possible, unless someone prove that it can work.

[RighteousReason]

Hi, I read a lot about cryonics and was thinking a lot about it...I don’t know how someone cant spent so much money in something with such a little regulation. If you sing up for cryonics, when the cryonics company has your body, they can do whatever they want with your body. As you are dead they can do whatever they want with your body, as you are not a person anymore.
If there is a problem, they can cremate your body or do whatever they want, and none will no about, as there is not regulation at all. How do you know that there are actually bodies in the alcor facilities? They can have nothing there, but because there is not regulation none will ever know. I would be surprise if one day they investigate alcor and they find out that there are nothing there and that they cremated all the bodies. I would support cryonics with much more regulation, but no with the current regulation...

There are no balances with the money either, so they can do whatever they want with the money. Don’t you realise? You die, and they have your body to do whatever they want with it…they also have your money. As you are dead you don’t have right anymore, and because of the king of contract that you sing and no regulation as all you family really don know what happened with your body
Its I big business and that’s why alcor doesn’t want any regulation about it, so they can do whatever they want.

How do you know that they actually perform Project cryonics?
How o you know what they really do with the “patients”?
How do you know hat they actually do with the money?

You don’t knot it without regulation!!

All of this is written in the contract you sign with the company, which is backed by the United States legal system, law enforcement, and military. How about THAT regulation?

"Regulation" as you use it is a bad thing, it generally involves the government getting in with an existing oligopoly like getting in with a gang of thieves. If you have some specific complaints that, for example, Alcor doesn't make in their contract, complain to them about those points, and if they don't fulfill the contract requirements you want, find another cryonics company that will, or if you cannot find one, instead you can, and only through the power of the free market (which you are actively damning by demanding government regulation), you can start your own cryonics company that signs people using whatever contract you want.

Edited by RighteousReason, 30 November 2009 - 01:09 AM.

[lunarsolarpower]

I think a form of professional association or accrediting body would provide the type of oversight some people desire. This third party organization would collect dues from each cryonics organization that wanted to be affiliated with it. It would set up a series of best practices that each "accredited" organization would have to meet to remain affiliated. Whether this is a good use of limited cryonics resources at this point is open for debate. However it seems like arguments for this would be far more effective if they were made using proper spelling and grammar.

[Berserker]

First, sorry for my grammar but English is not my first language. I don’t have much time now but I see many good points and answer.
About the Ted William fiasco, the man of the book may just be a man who is looking for profit, but…maybe some things that he said are truth.

My problem here is that I see in alcor a company that charge very high prices, they say that they have already around 1000 customers, and every customers pay between 80.000 dollars and 150.000 dollars. Then you have in cryonics a big business, even if they say that’s it’s a non profit organisation.
With the current regulation you don’t know were the money goes as I said, and nothing is very clear. Did you ever think in the possibility that alcor is just a company looking for money and selling smoke?

Because I always heard that the people for alcor support cryonics as well, that they are not looking for protit, etc. But then, you don’t know were the money goes, what they really do with the bodies, etc.

In my opinion all regulation is desirable. Regulation will make the business more appealing to the people and more truthful.

[j0lt_c0la]

In my opinion all regulation is desirable. Regulation will make the business more appealing to the people and more truthful.

Then you have an irreconcilable difference with anyone of at least somewhat of a libertarian bent, which happens to make up a large chunk of cryonicists, and no amount of arguments between you and people with such beliefs is going to achieve anything unless one side changes their fundamental opinion. Since these are people who continue to be interested in cryonics despite much social stigma against the concept, I do not think it likely that if anyone would change their beliefs, it would be them. If you do not base your argument on an entirely different premise, you will achieve nothing.

Edit: Case in point: Reason Magazine's article about previously proposed regulation in Arizona. This is what libertarians who aren't even involved in cryonics think about such regulation. (Also, according to a quote they include by one of the people who pushed the bill, they're entirely correct about the true purpose of such legislation: "These companies need to be regulated or deregulated out of business.") Your work is really cut out for you unless you change your premise drastically. Argue that professional, voluntary regulation might improve business and would be good PR, and you might get somewhere. Keep arguing that regulation is an a priori good, and you're just going to get laughed out of the room by most of the people you're trying to convince. If you're actually interested in seeing constructive regulation implemented so that you can feel comfortable purchasing cryonics (as opposed to being a concern troll), then you should make arguments that have more than a cryonaut's chance in hell of actually being listened to.

Edited by j0lt_c0la, 30 November 2009 - 10:45 AM.

[Esoparagon]

Yes, but all that aside, the only other choice is burial or cremation and being dead forever with no chance of ever coming back. I'd rather take the option where I have some chance rather than none what so ever.

[RighteousReason]

In my opinion all regulation is desirable. Regulation will make the business more appealing to the people and more truthful.

Then you have an irreconcilable difference with anyone of at least somewhat of a libertarian bent, which happens to make up a large chunk of cryonicists, and no amount of arguments between you and people with such beliefs is going to achieve anything unless one side changes their fundamental opinion. Since these are people who continue to be interested in cryonics despite much social stigma against the concept, I do not think it likely that if anyone would change their beliefs, it would be them. If you do not base your argument on an entirely different premise, you will achieve nothing.

Edit: Case in point: Reason Magazine's article about previously proposed regulation in Arizona. This is what libertarians who aren't even involved in cryonics think about such regulation. (Also, according to a quote they include by one of the people who pushed the bill, they're entirely correct about the true purpose of such legislation: "These companies need to be regulated or deregulated out of business.") Your work is really cut out for you unless you change your premise drastically. Argue that professional, voluntary regulation might improve business and would be good PR, and you might get somewhere. Keep arguing that regulation is an a priori good, and you're just going to get laughed out of the room by most of the people you're trying to convince. If you're actually interested in seeing constructive regulation implemented so that you can feel comfortable purchasing cryonics (as opposed to being a concern troll), then you should make arguments that have more than a cryonaut's chance in hell of actually being listened to.

[KalaBeth]

1. No worries on the grammar. It reads as "second language" not "illiterate" anyhow, especially with the periods in large numbers. You're fine.

2. Given you're not an American, your interest in American domestic law seems rather... odd.
If regulation is what you're looking for, I'm sure you can find plenty of it in the EU. Good luck finding a cryonics company there though. Not that the one might have anything to do with the other.

3. Regulation is a means, not an end. Your end is not (or shouldn't be) simply establishing regulation, it should be to ensure your contract - should you choose to buy one - is honored.
Your means then are in the current political and social climate destructive to your avowed ends.

Tell you what - get a licensing board for cryo set up and running in your country of origin first. One that treats it as a professional field with professional standards instead of voodoo witch doctors and hucksters. When you got that going, come back and ask for it here, pointing to your own wonderful model.

[CryoBurger]

I agree with the original poster.

The type of regulation he's referring to are laws that protect the consumer.

Even basic assimilation into the mortuary society - or whatever it is called - should be expected. Pushed for. Demanded by consumers.

Its not going to "Strangle" or kill anything. Its called checks and balances. And with books being written about the horrific unethical behavior and medical practices going on by untrained individuals in certain cryonics facilities - true or not - concerns would be alleviated if Alcor and others were subject to *BASIC* regulatory laws.

To this day if fascinates the hell out of me that someone in Arizona innocently called for the regulation of the Alcor company, and the result were numerous insidious death threats on himself and his family - by anonymous callers - to the point that he actually backed off the legislation out of fear for his life.

How can anyone rate this thread "one star" ? That's like saying we don't need a legal system in America because it stimies our freedom of choice. Its pathetic, absurd logic.

Laws are there to protect us.

-CB-

[captainbeefheart]

First, companies like Alcor and CI believe in cryonics, they're not some evil companies pretending to freeze bodies but actually using them to do their weekend barbecues.

The trouble is, with all the good guys that are around there are many bad guys around that would sell tainted baby milk when they think they can get away with it, bypass safety rules on absetos removal, sell milk pumped full of god knows what, work kids to the bone in sweat shops, not clean up toxic waste, the list goes on and on and on. I like to believe the best in people until they give me reason to think differently but lets face it there are many bad apples out there that care little about human safety and welfare and will exploit that if given half a chance...

[David Styles]

I don’t know how someone cant spent so much money in something with such a little regulation.

Consider the alternative. Burial and cremation are just as bad as the worst case scenario for cryonics. So, why opt for the worst case scenario, when you can opt for a chance (however small)?

If you sing up for cryonics, when the cryonics company has your body, they can do whatever they want with your body. As you are dead they can do whatever they want with your body, as you are not a person anymore.
If there is a problem, they can cremate your body or do whatever they want, and none will no about, as there is not regulation at all. How do you know that there are actually bodies in the alcor facilities? They can have nothing there, but because there is not regulation none will ever know.

Again, this worst case scenerio will make you no more dead than if you voluntarily chose burial or cremation. This way, at least there is a chance.

I would be surprise if one day they investigate alcor and they find out that there are nothing there and that they cremated all the bodies.

While I've not been to the Alcor facility personally yet, I've seen plenty of photos of frozen and vitrified patients. I also know that several patients have been "re-homed" several times, meaning they were still there to be "re-homed".

I would support cryonics with much more regulation, but no with the current regulation...

Again, what is your alternative? Burial or cremation? This is a lot worse for you than cryonics without regulation.

There are no balances with the money either, so they can do whatever they want with the money.

I'm a CI member myself, and CI is mutually owned. There is no "they". We are the "they"! I "own" CI just as much as Ben Best (the CEO) does. The directors are voted for out of the membership. Members vote on important issues when they arise. All financial goings-on are reported to the entire membership. It's really very transparent.

Don’t you realise? You die, and they have your body to do whatever they want with it…they also have your money. As you are dead you don’t have right anymore, and because of the king of contract that you sing and no regulation as all you family really don know what happened with your body

You're right, my relatives won't really know what happened with my body. But my friends will. How do I know that my friends will know? Because it will be friends of mine working for Cryonics UK and / or CI who carry out my suspension.

Its I big business

It's really not a big business at all. Microsoft is a big business. Apple is a big business. Alcor is a handful of people mostly working for a pittance (or for free) to realise a shared goal.

and that’s why alcor doesn’t want any regulation about it, so they can do whatever they want.

Frankly, I'd far, far, prefer that cryonics organisations be able to do whatever they want, and go as unhindered as possible. They want what I want; whereas the government doesn't care.

How do you know that they actually perform Project cryonics?
How o you know what they really do with the “patients”?
How do you know hat they actually do with the money?

Because I keep quite abreast of "their" activities.

However, if I didn't know this, I'd still go for it, as some chance is better than no chance.

I hope that helps to assuage your reticence to some degree.

[Berserker]

Thanks for all the answer. I think that Cryburger really understood the post. I support the idea of cryonics, and I think that is much better than cremation. However I don’t support the actual way of implementing cryonics. And I think that the customers will really gain more security with some regulation.

And about big business, yes it’s quite big, Alcor got around 1000 member now, if every member pay between 80.000-150.000 dollars, then you have a lot of money moving around. Still, if more of they cryonics members are happy with the current system, I suppose than then there is nothing else to do. But I wouldn’t be happy paying so much money with the actual scenario. I wouldn’t just fell safe enough.

[David Styles]

I support the idea of cryonics, and I think that is much better than cremation.

Excellent.

However I don’t support the actual way of implementing cryonics.

Where I don't support the way of implementing something, I endeavour to change it. However, I'm really glad that you don't in this case, as like I say I prefer that cryonics organisations have as much "free rein" as possible, as that way they are more free to save my life.

And about big business, yes it’s quite big, Alcor got around 1000 member now, if every member pay between 80.000-150.000 dollars, then you have a lot of money moving around.

Alcor is a non-profit organisation.

Still, if more of they cryonics members are happy with the current system, I suppose than then there is nothing else to do. But I wouldn’t be happy paying so much money with the actual scenario. I wouldn’t just fell safe enough.

But you agree that you'd feel more safe with cryonics and some chance than burial or cremation and no chance?

Edit to mention: Members mostly don't pay that much money at all. Most members fund the suspension by life insurance, whose premiums work out a Hell of a lot less. I pay £6/month to my life insurance company, and they in turn will pay £100,000 to CI, which will more than cover the cost of a suspension (which with CI is $28,000 or $35,000 depending on one's plan). Note also that I'm funding a contract in dollars with pounds, which is very favourable to me. I imagine you'll be in a similar situation with the Euro if you're in Europe.

Edited by David Styles, 09 December 2009 - 12:17 AM.

[cryoguy]

To this day if fascinates the hell out of me that someone in Arizona innocently called for the regulation of the Alcor company, and the result were numerous insidious death threats on himself and his family - by anonymous callers - to the point that he actually backed off the legislation out of fear for his life.

Before so readily accepting the claims of people actively hostile to Alcor and everything it does, I think you should do some background study of what really happened with this legislation.

http://www.alcor.org...egislation.html

Alcor supported positive aspects of the legislation, while opposing aspects that would reduce quality of care or make cryonics practically impossible. If Alcor were absolutely opposed to the legislation, Alcor had enough support to retire the bill in the first Health Committee hearing. Having been convinced that there would be a negotiating process going forward, Alcor recommended passage to the next stage. There was no need for death threats and Alcor did not condone the kook(s) who made them. The bill was later withdrawn for reasons that had nothing to do with threats, as Stump himself recently told CNN.

Its not going to "Strangle" or kill anything. Its called checks and balances. And with books being written about the horrific unethical behavior and medical practices going on by untrained individuals in certain cryonics facilities - true or not - concerns would be alleviated if Alcor and others were subject to *BASIC* regulatory laws.

Alcor is already subject to such laws, and passed a city inspection brought on by the most sensational false allegations of regulatory violations of 2003.

http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=22461

The tactic of arguing for regulation based on false allegations of violating regulations that already exist can only be called weird.

There's not much new in the 2009 book by the same guy that hasn't been similarly discredited

http://www.network54...ead/1258263309/

It's like a guy saying his neighbor beats his wife. The neighbor denies he beats his wife. The guy says that the government should move into his neighbor's house anyway because horrific allegations - true or not - should always be addressed by government oversight. However, what if the government agent sent to the house believed at the outset that marriage itself was an intrinsic assault? That was part of the problem Alcor faced in 2004. The head of the funeral board that was to be put in charge of Alcor said that he believed cryonics "should be regulated or deregulated out of business" and that neuropreservation was "mutilation."

Cryonics Institute is now explicitly regulated as a cemetery. This forced them to do cryoprotectant perfusions in a mortuary rather than in their facility where the actual cooling equipment is. In their case, regulation demonstrably impaired implementation of optimum cryopeservation procedures. This is to be expected when people who don't understand or personally value cryonics are put in charge. Someday cryonics may be large enough to avoid this problem, but such size is still a long way away.

[CryoBurger]

Alcor is a non-profit organisation.

A non profit organization that made 2.3 million dollars last year, and 1.2 million the year before, with total assets of over 8.2 million dollars.

http://www.alcor.org...cor990-2008.pdf

You're aware that Non Profit is just a title, and the people running it can still get rich, right?

Non profit does not in any way imply that these individuals are protected from the temptations of greed.

-CB-

Edited by CryoBurger, 09 December 2009 - 08:49 AM.

[David Styles]

Alcor is a non-profit organisation.

A non profit organization that made 2.3 million dollars last year, and 1.2 million the year before, with total assets of over 8.2 million dollars.

http://www.alcor.org...cor990-2008.pdf

I'm at work right now and my iPhone is being very slow to do anything with that PDF, so I can't view all the details right now. However, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it probably doesn't show millions of dollars being paid to executives.

As for the assets, I don't see the relevance of this to your case as it's necessary to protect the future of the organisation and one way of doing this is sensible asset management.

You're aware that Non Profit is just a title,

Yes, but it is at least the correct title.

and the people running it can still get rich, right?

Non profit does not in any way imply that these individuals are protected from the temptations of greed.

Who exactly do you think is getting rich out of Cryonics?

Not a nebulous shadowy "them", or "people running it", but specific people to whom you can point. Everything is publicly accessible, so please point to who specifically you think is getting rich out of this.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that nobody is!

[Luke Parrish]

 

Frankly, I'd far, far, prefer that cryonics organisations be able to do whatever they want, and go as unhindered as possible. They want what I want; whereas the government doesn't care.

Hear hear!


Market forces have already weeded out the cryonics companies whose only motive is profit. It just doesn't work very well as a for-profit business.

Not that I would mind if someone got fabulously rich from getting the job done.

[bgwowk]

 Market forces have already weeded out the cryonics companies whose only motive is profit.

As a historical point of accuracy, I don't think there ever was one. Defining "cryonics company" as a company that has long-term legal custody of patients, I think they have all been legally non-profit entities (except for Trans Time).

There have been many for-profit cryonics service companies that have come and gone. But even these were motivated not so much by profit as a desire to attract investment capital to build their capability, which required an ability to issue shares.

The classic negative stereotype of a cryonics company headed by cynical businessmen motivated by money hasn't been weeded out because it never existed. At least no entities fitting that mold have ever progressed far enough to be historically notable.

[Luke Parrish]

 Market forces have already weeded out the cryonics companies whose only motive is profit.

As a historical point of accuracy, I don't think there ever was one. Defining "cryonics company" as a company that has long-term legal custody of patients, I think they have all been legally non-profit entities (except for Trans Time).

There have been many for-profit cryonics service companies that have come and gone. But even these were motivated not so much by profit as a desire to attract investment capital to build their capability, which required an ability to issue shares.

The classic negative stereotype of a cryonics company headed by cynical businessmen motivated by money hasn't been weeded out because it never existed. At least no entities fitting that mold have ever progressed far enough to be historically notable.

Seems like I'd heard rumors of one or two from the early days, but I would have to do some digging to remember what. In any case, as you say no such company has arisen to historical notability. Chattsworth e.g. failed due to poor planning, not greed as far as I'm aware (perhaps more the opposite -- not charging enough in advance to keep going realistically).

[JJN]

I think a form of professional association or accrediting body would provide the type of oversight some people desire. This third party organization would collect dues from each cryonics organization that wanted to be affiliated with it. It would set up a series of best practices that each "accredited" organization would have to meet to remain affiliated. Whether this is a good use of limited cryonics resources at this point is open for debate. However it seems like arguments for this would be far more effective if they were made using proper spelling and grammar.

There is a very well known process for doing quality control. It is done under the guidelines of the ISO (International Standards Organisation). It revolves around having some sort of quality manual which lays out all of the company's training, qualifications, and procedures. An independant accrediting company comes in and inspects everything, and then if standards are met, the company would receive accreditation. This is followed by subsequent audits. It is not a trivial or cheap process. It is an NGO thing. As far as I know, no government oversight or requirements are involved.

For me, I would not insist that a cryonics provider have this, but would make me feel a litttle better about the whole process. If nothing else, perhaps they could try to at least follow the guidelines without pursuing accreditation.

Jeff

[JJN]

Another very useful tool for quality is using a FMEA (Failure Mode Effects and Analysis) approach. This is well known in industry, and I think mostly so in the engineering disciplines. What it does is to look at all the possible failure modes of a product or process, and determine what the outcomes of the failures are. Scores are given for the likelyhood of a failure, with another score given to what the outcome of the failure is. There are no hard and fast rules of what is acceptable as final scores, but it is a way of at least diving into possible failure anaylsis using a formal process.