As I recall, the paperwork was in order. Writing this entirely from memory, I seem to think that someone signed something just as the air ambulance was on the runway ready for takeoff. Presumably the someone would have been John Henry, who presumably had next-of-kin status as the oldest of the three children (do I have this right?). He was of course an Alcor member, and was known to have financial resources. Under those circumstances, one can see that it would be tempting to "save a life," as the people at CI like to put it.
On the other hand, the Williams case did appear to violate informal guidelines for last-minute cases. The patient was not a member, there was no hard evidence of his prior desire to be cryopreserved, the money had not been paid in advance to Alcor, and there was insufficient time to determine whether other relatives might object (a big issue, as it turned out). If I am incorrect on any of these points, I'm sure someone will set me straight.
I have been in the position of voting "yes" or "no" on several cryonics cases, and in one instance I made the decision (on behalf of CryoCare) pretty much on my own, purely on the basis of being shown savings bank books demonstrating sufficient funds. But I think I would have voted against the Williams case, overall.
What I'm getting at is that these decisions are not simple. There are no binding rules, only guidelines, and the guidelines have been violated numerous times, usually in cases where celebrity was not a factor.
Conclusion: I don't think there is a double standard as FD suggests.
