Go back  

regulation questions

December 16 2008 at 2:23 PM
  (Login R_Ettinger)
Veteran Member


Response to regulatory pro's and con's

 

A couple of reminders or clarifications about CI as a cemetery:

1. CI is not required to meet all of the usual Michigan requirements for cemeteries. Our unusual character was recognized, e.g. that we don't have grass over graves, don't use coffins or crypts etc. It was also understood that our patients are not intended to be "interred forever" as is usual with cemeteries. The point of the regulation was simply to assure some oversight, in particular financial viability and no deceptive practices.

As a matter of public relations, the fact that we are scrutinized by the state is mostly a positive.

2. Doing perfusions on site will be revisited. Meanwhile, moving a patient from the mortuary to CI is a short trip with continuing cool-down.

3. Alcor's current lack of formal regulation or oversight leaves it vulnerable to future legislative menace. If I remember correctly, Alcor has paid substantial sums for lobbying help. And to remain unregulated forever is probably unrealistic. There is pressure to regulate everything, and when our numbers grow so will the pressure.

Robert Ettinger

 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

Find more forums on Science and TechnologyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2013 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement