11 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

II. RIGHT TO CONTROL DISPOSITION OF REMAINS

California Health and Safety Code, 7100 et seq., current version
1970, amended 1988.

This act is the cornerstone of the legal rights of suspension
patients in California. It details the rights of a family to control
disposition of remains, and the right of a decedent to direct that
disposition. Several courts have held that this act applies to cryonic
suspension.

"7100(a). The right to control the disposition of the remains of a
deceased person, including the location and conditions of interment,
unless other directions have been given by the decedent, vests in, and the
duty of interment and the liability for the reasonable cost of interment
of the remains devolves upon the following in the order named:" [various
relatives are listed.]

and

"7100(d)(1). A decedent, prior to his death, may direct the preparation
for, type, or place of interment of his remains, either by oral or written
instructions, but a written contract for funeral services may only be
modified in writing. The person or persons otherwise entitled to control
the disposition of the remains under the provisions of this section shall
faithfully carry out the directions of the decedent subject only to the
provisions of this chapter with respect to the duties of the coroner."

Arizona has a similar statute (see below).

[It is notable that the list of "Law Review Commentaries" for this section
includes "Cryonic Suspension and the Law" by Curtis Henderson and Robert
C.W. Ettinger, UCLA Law Review (1968) 15:414.]

[thefirstimmortal]

II. RIGHT TO CONTROL DISPOSITION OF REMAINS

Arizona Revised Statutes, Public Health and Safety, 36-831.01, added
1990, amended 1991.

"36-831.01 A. If the person on whom the duty of burial is imposed
pursuant to 36-831 is aware of the decedent's wishes regarding the
disposition of his remains, that person shall comply with those wishes if
they are reasonable and do not impose an economic or emotional hardship."

Since the "person on whom the duty of burial is imposed" would be
Alcor, via the UAGA, I can safely say that Alcor would consider cryonic
suspension to be reasonable, that it would not impose an emotional
hardship, and that (assuming your arrangements are in place) it would not
impose a financial hardship.

[Lazarus Long]

This is a critical find IMHO Bill but the *not so obvious* reason is the critical recognition of the *remains* as essentially the *property of the deceased* and then its disposition as a *duty* basically still subject to probate.

The interesting aspect then is that the remains under property and probate law establish a *duty,* not merely a hypothetical *right,* but a Court and Executor *responsibility* to comply. In fact once so ordered by the deceased ALCOR *must* comply with the wishes of the deceased as per probate instruction and the court should so order under a reading of the will so long as the wishes of the deceased are not in violation of Arizona law.

[bgwowk]

Laz wrote:

This is a critical find IMHO...

It's more a discussion starter than a "find" given that the text is taken directly from the flagship article on the Legal Status of Cryonics on the Alcor website:

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

but the *not so obvious* reason is the critical recognition of the *remains* as essentially the *property of the deceased* and then its disposition as a *duty* basically still subject to probate.

I don't believe this is correct. It's my understanding that legally "remains" are not property. Entities may have legal custody of remains, but not ownership. As far as estates are concerned, since remains are not property, they are not part of the decedent's estate or probate process. Although wills would presumably qualify as an example of a "written instruction", as a practical matter wills are not a good way to leave disposition instructions. Often wills are not even read until after a funeral. Note that the statutes make no specific mention of wills or probate.

In fact once so ordered by the deceased ALCOR *must* comply with the wishes of the deceased as per probate instruction and the court should so order under a reading of the will so long as the wishes of the deceased are not in violation of Arizona law.

There are a few issues here. First, the statutes make reference to "decedent wishes" and "oral or written instructions", of which a will is only one example. If there is a conflict among such documents or oral instructions, the conflict must be resolved. A will is not an overriding document.

Second, it assumes that Alcor is the "person on whom the duty of burial is imposed". If while living the decedent signed a UAGA document conveying legal custody of remains to Alcor, then indeed Alcor would be the "person on whom the duty of burial is imposed", and responsibilty for carrying out the decedent's wishes would presumably be Alcor's. Often this duty includes cremation, which is typicaly done for non-cryopreserved remains of neuropatients. However if the decedent did not execute a UAGA document, then the situation is different. The "person on whom the duty of burial is imposed" would then typically be next-of-kin (the California statute lists them). It is then the duty of the next-of-kin to ensure that what they believe the decedent's wishes are carried out, which may include conveying the remains to Alcor by executing a UAGA the same way families donate bodies or organs of loved ones to organ procurement agencies or medical schools. This is uncommon in cryonics, but sometimes it does happen. In such cases I believe that the primary responsibility for knowledge and adherence to decedent's wishes, or any failure thereof, rests with the family making the anatomical donation. Of course Alcor would have to adhere to whatever court orders ultimately arose out of any litigation over the matter.

I'm a bit sensitive to this issue because Alcor has taken a beating over the Williams case because of the Williams will. But Alcor didn't just come along and scoop him out of the night. The cryonics decision in that case was made either by Williams himself and/or his immediate family. Alcor simply did as they were asked to do by the responsible parties. They have now publicly stated this.

---BrianW

[thefirstimmortal]

This is a critical find IMHO...

It's more a discussion starter than a "find" given that the text is taken directly from the flagship article on the Legal Status of Cryonics on the Alcor website:

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

Most of these current posting are extracts from CI's data base. Over 25,000 posts to sift thru. Great info, but needs to dissected, and reorganized.

[Lazarus Long]

Brian, first let me say I am only giving my opinion and trying to suggest a different manner of approaching the problem. I suggest it is derived of certain ambiguities in the law and the concept of why the *remains* are legally speaking falling into a category of *property*. In part it is the consequence of language.

Let's look at the definitions for a moment:

re·mains n.

1. All that is left after other parts have been taken away, used up, or destroyed.
2. A corpse.
3. The unpublished writings of a deceased author.
4. Ancient ruins or fossils.

Obviously number two is the relevant point though it is derived of number one and it is those other parts, life, that "have been taken away, used up, or destroyed" that are not property but what *remains* is often treated merely as property, as in the case of *organ and body donation* and the *ownership* of said corpse given to a medical institution for anatomical study, or if the remains, as in the case of Oetzi (the Iceman) constitute a scientific body of evidence for study. In fact the return of fossil burial remains to native American tribes is predicated on those being the *property* of the tribe, with the tribe being a *sovereign entity* capable of receiving said property.

So IMHO there exists considerable reason to examine the issue in terms of property rights as the law is worded inclusively of the idea. This is also more than a *Common Law* perception of what the body is, it is an extension on the *Inalienable Rights* we possess while alive that grant us a right of ownership for our possessions and a right not to be owned so long as we are alive. However once *dead* the physical body becomes just one more *tangible* effect that must be disposed of by the State and Family.

The problem is that everyone is trying to have it both ways. The remains are simply a form of property. A property whose owner is deceased.

prop·er·ty
n.
1. Something owned; a possession.
2. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
3. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
4. Possessions considered as a group.
5. The right of ownership; title.
6. An article, except costumes and scenery, that appears on the stage or on screen during a dramatic performance.
7. A characteristic trait or peculiarity, especially one serving to define or describe its possessor.
8. A characteristic attribute possessed by all members of a class. See Synonyms at quality.
9. A special capability or power; a virtue: the chemical properties of a metal.

Do you own your body?

The body is not a piece of real estate but in this case we are discussing the *tangible remains* after an *intangible quality* (life) has departed from it.

I grant that whether we can agree on a body being a *possession* is problematic but clearly the above statute is granting a form of *title* to the remains that is transferable under specific grant and condition, in essence a *Right of Ownership*.

Ironically this may be a difficult and dangerous area of law because for you to fulfill your stated mission the most crucial aspect is that upon reinfusion of *life* into the body the rights over the remains return to individual as preeminent. Ownership of the *body* reverts to the *spirit* that *possesses* it, thus animating it, by uniting the *remains* with what was lost.

In other words what is really being preserved is the idea of ownership after death by deceased that is predicated on the faith that someday a reversal of death will be possible and responsible for *care-taking* the remains are with the contractor of the assigned service whether that be an undertaker, cemetery, crematorium, university, or ALCOR.

[bgwowk]

Laz wrote:

In other words what is really being preserved is the idea of ownership after death by deceased that is predicated on the faith that someday a reversal of death will be possible and responsible for *care-taking* the remains are with the contractor of the assigned service whether that be an undertaker, cemetery, crematorium, university, or ALCOR.

I hope that indeed the law can and will eventually be interpreted as you suggest. If people have the right to determine the disposition of estate property such as libraries and memoirs, then people should certainly have the right to determine the disposition of their most personal archive of all: the physical content of their mind.

---BrianW

[bgwowk]

thefirstimmortal wrote:

Most of these current posting are extracts from CI's data base. Over 25,000 posts to sift thru. Great info, but needs to dissected, and reorganized.

No sir. The database that you are drawing your posts from has nothing to do with the Cryonics Institute. You are drawing your posts from the archives of CryoNet

http://www.cryonet.org/

the worlds longest-running "non-denominational" cryonics mailing list, maintained by CryoCare and Alcor activist, Kevin Brown. The post that started this thread was written a decade ago by Alcor president Steve Bridge for Cryonics magazine, and cross posted to CryoNet. Also, care must be taken in applying the "Legal Status" article to CI's situation because CI doesn't use the UAGA. CI is regulated quite differently than Alcor.

If CI has been mispresenting the CryoNet database its own, please draw our attention to where this is done so that this may be corrected. I would also suggest in the interests of good netiquette that you should include URLs for material you post. Thanks.

---BrianW

[thefirstimmortal]

No sir. The database that you are drawing your posts from has nothing to do with the Cryonics Institute. You are drawing your posts from the archives of CryoNet

Yes Brain, I stand corrected. I started reading Cryonet from post one late this summer, and saved all of the interesting relevant or useful posts to a folder I marked CI. I got past 20,000 posts and stopped reading because my time and attention were needed for a case I'm working on that's set for trail on Dec. 8th. Upon reviewing the posts I extracted, I decided recently that much of this otherwise long forgotten material should be reorganized, perhaps for some future useful purpose.

If CI has been mispresenting the CryoNet database its own, please draw our attention to where this is done so that this may be corrected.

Again, CI has made no mispresentation, that's my late night posting mistake.

I would also suggest in the interests of good netiquette that you should include URLs for material you post. Thanks.

Brain, much of the extracted information has the message numbers on it, take the Trygve Bauge thread for example. Nearly evey post has the easily recognizable tags at the beginning of the post...

X-Message-Number: 3937
From: Trygve Bauge <trygveb@powertech.no>
Subject: Re: Life extension & liberty go hand in hand!.
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 02:18:27 +0100 (GMT+0100)

Now, no matter how intersted someone might be in the Trygve Bauge story, I seriously doubt anyone is going to sift thru the over 25,000 posts (the equivalent to reading 100 250 page books) to read what might end up being 15 minutes of reading. We can leave all this wonderful material dead in the archives, or try to breath some life into it.

As for providing URL's, I simply have no interest in all that busy work, so if the message numbers are not enough (one can find the original by going to Cryonet and going to the Message-Number ) then I'm guilty of poor netiquette. Feel free to call me rude.

Oh yeah, almost forgot, if providing the Message-Number isn't enough, this one's really gonna piss you off. On some of those really long super posts, I just took snippets out, and didn't even bother with the Message-Numbers.

Live Long and Well

[bgwowk]

thefirstimmortal wrote:

As for providing URL's, I simply have no interest in all that busy work, so if the message numbers are not enough (one can find the original by going to Cryonet and going to the Message-Number ) then I'm guilty of poor netiquette.

I didn't know you were retrieving the material from a downloaded archive. I can certainly see how that would make retrieving the corresponding URL's a non-trivial matter. In that case, just adding the word "CryoNet" above

X-Message-Number: 3937
From: Trygve Bauge <trygveb@powertech.no>
Subject: Re: Life extension & liberty go hand in hand!.
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 02:18:27 +0100 (GMT+0100)

would make it easier for people to find the original source should they be interested in pursuing it.

Anyway, thanks for your keen interest, and sorry if I came down a bit hard. It's not your average cryonicist who cares enough about cryonics history to digest >20,000 messages! On the subject of cryonics history, the Cryonics magazine archive http://www.alcor.org...zine/index.html is pretty interesting too.

Good luck with your case.

---BrianW

[thefirstimmortal]

I didn't know you were retrieving the material from a downloaded archive.  I can certainly see how that would make retrieving the corresponding URL's a non-trivial matter.

To be more clear Brian, I went to cryonet and read each individual post, and cut and pasted the gems in a word pad document. I plan to finish that at some point this winter, the other 5,000 or so unread posts that is. That effort started when I kinda sorta got into a little argument with Robert Ettinger, I didn't want to respond with old arguments that may have been made before, so I decided to read the whole thing.

Anyway, thanks for your keen interest, and sorry if I came down a bit hard.

That's OK Brian, and I too was being a little short with you, and for that I too am sorry.

  It's not your average cryonicist who cares enough about cryonics history to digest >20,000 messages!  On the subject of cryonics history, the Cryonics magazine archive http://www.alcor.org...zine/index.html is pretty interesting too.

Reading cryonet has been on my list of things to do for some time now, but the main reason to read it was not so much for it's history, but for what information could be taken that might be useful for future legal cases surrounding cryonic issues, death and disposition issues. I think we would do far better to prepare for cases even before they become cases.

And of course I'll read those back issues, thanks for the link.

Good luck with your case.

Thank You Brian. I am rather concerned about my upcoming case as it is becoming painfully clear to myself, and as others have noted here, my mental capacity is diminishing. My power to learn or retain knowledge and my ability think are starting to decline, and decline fast. I've been spending time in the nootropic section of this site, but I have my doubts that these products will restore my brain back to it's former capacity, but I have to try something.

Live Long and Well