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.
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.
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.