Given that you didn’t actually paste in the criteria emailed to Alcor, it’s hard to tell how much of a departure the revision you pasted is from it. Maybe add that in for clarity?
My impression of Alcor (and CI, who I used to be signed up with before) is that they’re a very scrappy/resource-limited organization, and thus that they have to stringently prioritize where to expend time and effort. I wish it weren’t so, but that seems to be how it is. In addition, they have a lot of unfortunate first-hand experience with legal issues arising during cryopreservation due to family intervention, which I suspect is influencing their proposed wording.
I would urge you to not ascribe to malice or incompetence what can be explained by time limitations and different priors. My suspicion is that if you explain where you’re coming from and why you don’t like their proposed wording (and maybe ask why they wanted to change some of the specific things you were suggesting) then they would be able to give you a more helpful response.
Given other sketchy things I’ve read about them (there is plenty of debate on this site and elsewhere calling them out for bad behavior)
I don’t follow things too closely but would be interested in what you’re referring to, if you could provide any links.
+1 on the wording likely being because Alcor has dealt with resistant families a lot, and generally you stand a better chance of being preserved if Alcor has as much legal authority as possible to make that happen. You may have to explain that you’re okay with your wife potentially doing something that would have been against your wishes (yes, I realize you don’t expect that, but there more than 0% chance it will happen) and result in no preservation when Alcor thinks you would have liked one.
This is actually why I went with Alcor: they have a long record of going to court to fight for patients in the face of families trying to do something else.
Thank you for this; I will simplify and do as you suggest, leaving it entirely in my wife’s hands.
yes, I realize you don’t expect that, but there more than 0% chance it will happen
Fair enough, but if I’m that wrong about her, I have much bigger problems than this extremely-unlikely-to-work process (my analysis, I know many people think cryonics is more likely to work than I do) becoming less likely to work than before :)
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply; I really appreciate it.
Here’s the quote:
If significant damage to brain tissue (beyond the normal amount from dying) has occurred or has likely occurred, from a source such as fire, decomposition, physical impact, neurodegenerative disease, etc., I do not wish to be cryopreserved. Define “significant damage” as damage that would drastically and likely permanently alter my personality, memories, or ability to live a normal life, if I were magically immediately revived and all non-brain-damage to my body was reversed. For example, a car crash, in which the primary cause of death is head trauma, would constitute “significant damage”. Similarly, a car crash in which the primary cause of death is blood loss, and in which there is no good reason to believe that massive brain damage has probably occurred (beyond the typical amount from blood loss and death), would not constitute “significant damage”. In the event that there is a question of whether some amount of damage constitutes “significant damage”, my wife, [name], should make the decision regarding whether or not my remains should be cryopreserved.
As you can see, it’s a pretty big departure. Given the excellent points you and others raise, I think I will try giving them the benefit of the doubt, and simplify my criteria for Alcor, putting the decision solely in my wife’s hands, with the provision that I should be preserved if she is not present and cannot be immediately reached. If I do not get any more seemingly underhanded pushback (them pushing back a little/stating their concerns is fine, but any more sneakily making huge changes would increase my concerns), then I’ll write this off to the factors you suggest, and proceed. Thank you!
Given that you didn’t actually paste in the criteria emailed to Alcor, it’s hard to tell how much of a departure the revision you pasted is from it. Maybe add that in for clarity?
My impression of Alcor (and CI, who I used to be signed up with before) is that they’re a very scrappy/resource-limited organization, and thus that they have to stringently prioritize where to expend time and effort. I wish it weren’t so, but that seems to be how it is. In addition, they have a lot of unfortunate first-hand experience with legal issues arising during cryopreservation due to family intervention, which I suspect is influencing their proposed wording.
I would urge you to not ascribe to malice or incompetence what can be explained by time limitations and different priors. My suspicion is that if you explain where you’re coming from and why you don’t like their proposed wording (and maybe ask why they wanted to change some of the specific things you were suggesting) then they would be able to give you a more helpful response.
I don’t follow things too closely but would be interested in what you’re referring to, if you could provide any links.
+1 on the wording likely being because Alcor has dealt with resistant families a lot, and generally you stand a better chance of being preserved if Alcor has as much legal authority as possible to make that happen. You may have to explain that you’re okay with your wife potentially doing something that would have been against your wishes (yes, I realize you don’t expect that, but there more than 0% chance it will happen) and result in no preservation when Alcor thinks you would have liked one.
This is actually why I went with Alcor: they have a long record of going to court to fight for patients in the face of families trying to do something else.
Thank you for this; I will simplify and do as you suggest, leaving it entirely in my wife’s hands.
Fair enough, but if I’m that wrong about her, I have much bigger problems than this extremely-unlikely-to-work process (my analysis, I know many people think cryonics is more likely to work than I do) becoming less likely to work than before :)
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply; I really appreciate it.
Here’s the quote:
As you can see, it’s a pretty big departure. Given the excellent points you and others raise, I think I will try giving them the benefit of the doubt, and simplify my criteria for Alcor, putting the decision solely in my wife’s hands, with the provision that I should be preserved if she is not present and cannot be immediately reached. If I do not get any more seemingly underhanded pushback (them pushing back a little/stating their concerns is fine, but any more sneakily making huge changes would increase my concerns), then I’ll write this off to the factors you suggest, and proceed. Thank you!