state of the art?July 19 2010 at 2:44 PM
|Charles Platt (Login cplatt)|
Response to My point was
Again, I am speaking only for myself here.
The marketing of cryonics has always bothered me. But if I were working for a hospital, where I would be aware of various errors and omissions, marketing the hospital would bother me too. We all know how many malpractice suits there are. I myself have experienced a gross surgical error which resulted in uncontrolled bleeding.
To its credit, Alcor does maintain a section of its web site where it lists problems in cryonics, and its signup documents make it very clear that this is an experimental procedure.
Does Alcor really describe cryonics as being "a high-tech, state of the art medical procedure"? Not that I am aware of. I think its description is factually accurate.
The price may seem high to you, but imagine maintaining a nationwide response capability, involving some fairly complicated procedures and fairly expensive equipment, for a customer base of, what, 1000 people? In fact cryonics is grossly underpriced, when you consider that a significant portion of the cryopreservation fee has to be set aside for indefinite care.
There is not more regulation at your gas station. I would say there is precisely the same amount. Both entities must conform with local codes. Both may be inspected.
I do not claim that the cryonics industry is open and transparent. It used to be, in the 1980s, but not anymore. The incessant personal attacks, primarily on this forum, were the nail in the coffin, so to speak. This has been a great loss.
I do not believe that regulation is the answer. I believe that competition and a higher level of income would be a possible answer. This is why I have worked for two organizations which aimed to provide competition.