Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Cryonics on Boston Legal

From: Brian Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:57:27 -0600

It is only an issue (in all states I think) if you want to pick your own 
time and method of death like the character in the episode wanted. If 
you wait the whole process out until you die naturally then that makes 
the state happy.
-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: David Lubkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:15:31 -0500

The episode was an interesting rehash of David E. Kelley's last pass at 
this topic, in "The Good Human Bar" episode of L. A. Law, aired 4 Jan 1990. 
There's a partial transcript at

http://www.alcor.org/cryonics/cryonics9002.txt

and discussion of what we'd thought of it at the time.

Both treatments were sympathetic, but it's sad to see that 15 years later, 
Kelley still felt he had to write the same court outcome. At least the new 
one refers to "cryonics," instead of "cryogenics."

Brian Atkins wrote:

>time and method of death like the character in the episode wanted. If you 
>wait the whole process out until you die naturally then that makes the 
>state happy.

Except that the state reserves the right to negate your suspension wishes 
by autopsy, a procedure that won't leave much intact to suspend. You can 
reduce the likelihood of an autopsy through pre-mortem action, but you 
can't eliminate the threat altogether.

-- David Lubkin.