Paul it's very nice to see Max and co take forwards your standards proposal (to some extent at least). I feel it is important tho that this initiative be expanded to include the other elements you described and that it be embodied in a more robust and durable institutional form. Personally I feel Max would make an excellent Global Cryonics Standards Czar and lead such an effort :)
Absolutely agree. Needs to be a collaborative effort with appropriate cross-institutional SMEs but his knowledge and experience would make him a natural lead player.
From the article you can easily pull a set of standards pertaining to financial considerations. So an accreditation or standards manual might start to look like;
Section A - Governance standards
1. Written Standards
a. Compliance
b. Regular Updates
2. Oversight
Etc etc
Section B - Technical Standards
Section C - Funding Standards
....
Alcor would clearly come closest to meeting such standards and so folks familiar with their operations can use them as a starting point. The risk is making it Alcorcentric. I contemplate a future with numerous viable cryonics organization and setting a blueprint that would apply universally.
Very handy references, Andy, thanks! As mentioned in the article, I'll be putting together a more comprehensive comparative guide. Your lists (and Ben Best's list) will be good references for that.
Andy I wanted to make a response to this on the Cryosphere discord server but I don't think I did. Key point is that there are a number of these lists now, would be good if they could be combined to prevent wasteful duplication of effort (effort which could then be directed elsewhere if we had more 'central' co-ordination I must say too).
Completely agreed. That's why I wanted to put the one I contributed to on the cryo wiki, where it is creative commons and easier to find. Hope to contribute to this more myself in the future.
Outstanding, balanced, fair-minded and data-driven article by Max More. The distinctions seem pretty straightforward, and are not surprising to those of us who follow and care about the details of Cryopreservation organizations. CI's lack of response is unfortunate, but having attended most of the Fall meetings at CI for the last ten years, the data confirms CI does have solid and sustainable funding. Osirus is a Cryonics PR disaster waiting to happen, and I hope our community can attenuate this before some enterprising reporter decides to expose Osirus.
Outstanding, balanced, fair-minded and data-driven article by Max More. The distinctions seem pretty straightforward, and are not surprising to those of us who follow and care about the details of Cryopreservation organizations. CI's lack of response is unfortunate, but having attended most of the Fall meetings at CI for the last ten years, the data confirms CI does have solid and sustainable funding. Osirus is a Cryonics PR disaster waiting to happen, and I hope our community can attenuate this before some enterprising reporter decides to expose Osirus.
OK, so going back through this thought provoking article again, the structure of a certification or accreditation set of standards begins to emerge including Max's concerns. Here is what it starts to look like in very rough early draft;
Section A – Governance Standards
• Legal and Corporate Structure
o Does the organization have a corporate structure specific to management of patient care that meets standards of acceptable accountability and governance?
o Does the organization provide annual or more frequent reports on financial status, membership and projected costs?
• Membership
Section B – Technical Standards
• Deployment
• Standby
• Stabilization
• Storage
o Are there provisions for relocation of patients?
• Repair
• Revival
Section C – Quality Management Standards
Section D – Financial Administration Standards
• Patient Care Funds
o Does the organization adequately account for funding for ongoing maintenance of patients?
o Does the organization put funds aside for repair, revival, and support?
o Can the organization provide evidence that funding is adequate for funding current and projected future patients in perpetuity?
o Is funding of organizational staff overseen by an independent board?
o Does the organization show evidence of a fiduciary relationship with clients?
• Legal Funding
o Does the organization of funding available to defend itself from lawsuits?
• Contingency Planning
o Does the organization have written planning on patient relocation in case of emergencies?
o If the organization must cease operation, is there a written plan to deal with members currently in their care?
***
The sections I lay out certainly are not hard and fast, but what I'm suggesting is you start with the general areas of concern, then further define them, and then have the specific concrete questions the organization is graded on. This is how accreditation is done in medical organizations and the model seems to be adaptable here. Note that even in medical organizations, funding and governance issues are fair game for accreditors, not just medical technical standards.
SMEs could take this early example and further flesh it out, leading to a robust set of criteria.
Incredibly good article. Add me as a paid Biostasis Standard subscriber because of it.
Paul it's very nice to see Max and co take forwards your standards proposal (to some extent at least). I feel it is important tho that this initiative be expanded to include the other elements you described and that it be embodied in a more robust and durable institutional form. Personally I feel Max would make an excellent Global Cryonics Standards Czar and lead such an effort :)
Absolutely agree. Needs to be a collaborative effort with appropriate cross-institutional SMEs but his knowledge and experience would make him a natural lead player.
From the article you can easily pull a set of standards pertaining to financial considerations. So an accreditation or standards manual might start to look like;
Section A - Governance standards
1. Written Standards
a. Compliance
b. Regular Updates
2. Oversight
Etc etc
Section B - Technical Standards
Section C - Funding Standards
....
Alcor would clearly come closest to meeting such standards and so folks familiar with their operations can use them as a starting point. The risk is making it Alcorcentric. I contemplate a future with numerous viable cryonics organization and setting a blueprint that would apply universally.
Interesting analysis! This summer I put this together with help from a virtual assistant:
- https://cryonics.miraheze.org/wiki/List_of_SST_providers
- https://cryonics.miraheze.org/wiki/List_of_preservation_providers
- https://cryonics.miraheze.org/wiki/List_of_long-term_care_providers
It is already out-of-date. This a useful and difficult task and I appreciate you putting in the effort.
Very handy references, Andy, thanks! As mentioned in the article, I'll be putting together a more comprehensive comparative guide. Your lists (and Ben Best's list) will be good references for that.
Andy I wanted to make a response to this on the Cryosphere discord server but I don't think I did. Key point is that there are a number of these lists now, would be good if they could be combined to prevent wasteful duplication of effort (effort which could then be directed elsewhere if we had more 'central' co-ordination I must say too).
Completely agreed. That's why I wanted to put the one I contributed to on the cryo wiki, where it is creative commons and easier to find. Hope to contribute to this more myself in the future.
Outstanding, balanced, fair-minded and data-driven article by Max More. The distinctions seem pretty straightforward, and are not surprising to those of us who follow and care about the details of Cryopreservation organizations. CI's lack of response is unfortunate, but having attended most of the Fall meetings at CI for the last ten years, the data confirms CI does have solid and sustainable funding. Osirus is a Cryonics PR disaster waiting to happen, and I hope our community can attenuate this before some enterprising reporter decides to expose Osirus.
Outstanding, balanced, fair-minded and data-driven article by Max More. The distinctions seem pretty straightforward, and are not surprising to those of us who follow and care about the details of Cryopreservation organizations. CI's lack of response is unfortunate, but having attended most of the Fall meetings at CI for the last ten years, the data confirms CI does have solid and sustainable funding. Osirus is a Cryonics PR disaster waiting to happen, and I hope our community can attenuate this before some enterprising reporter decides to expose Osirus.
OK, so going back through this thought provoking article again, the structure of a certification or accreditation set of standards begins to emerge including Max's concerns. Here is what it starts to look like in very rough early draft;
Section A – Governance Standards
• Legal and Corporate Structure
o Does the organization have a corporate structure specific to management of patient care that meets standards of acceptable accountability and governance?
o Does the organization provide annual or more frequent reports on financial status, membership and projected costs?
• Membership
Section B – Technical Standards
• Deployment
• Standby
• Stabilization
• Storage
o Are there provisions for relocation of patients?
• Repair
• Revival
Section C – Quality Management Standards
Section D – Financial Administration Standards
• Patient Care Funds
o Does the organization adequately account for funding for ongoing maintenance of patients?
o Does the organization put funds aside for repair, revival, and support?
o Can the organization provide evidence that funding is adequate for funding current and projected future patients in perpetuity?
o Is funding of organizational staff overseen by an independent board?
o Does the organization show evidence of a fiduciary relationship with clients?
• Legal Funding
o Does the organization of funding available to defend itself from lawsuits?
• Contingency Planning
o Does the organization have written planning on patient relocation in case of emergencies?
o If the organization must cease operation, is there a written plan to deal with members currently in their care?
***
The sections I lay out certainly are not hard and fast, but what I'm suggesting is you start with the general areas of concern, then further define them, and then have the specific concrete questions the organization is graded on. This is how accreditation is done in medical organizations and the model seems to be adaptable here. Note that even in medical organizations, funding and governance issues are fair game for accreditors, not just medical technical standards.
SMEs could take this early example and further flesh it out, leading to a robust set of criteria.