A debatable issue, for sure.
We will welcome name(s) of law firms that would take on a class action
suit against govt or com'l entities for suppressing LE research and
technology.
Would have to start on contingency pending public announcement for
plaintifs. Favorable decision remote but...
Any and all publicity resulting from same will stimulate public awareness
and increase the miniscule amount of funding (if any) for research.
Thanks for the suggestion.
On Sat, 25 Feb 1995, Patrick O'Neil wrote:
>>> On 24 Feb 1995, Brian Rauchfuss - PCD wrote:
> >
> > If significant life-extension is available but is denied, is this really
> > different from mass-murder? Would it not be better, at least to offer
> > people the choice between reproduction and life-extension (note that 2 or
> > less children per couple does not create an exponential population problem).
>> No it would not be murder. No one has a "right" to life extension any
> more than they have a right to transplant organs. When doctors withold
> treatment for a patient for varied or sundry reasons, it is cannot be
> considered murder. Since when did you or I have an inalienable right to
> chemotherapy. You cannot take a hospital or doctor to court for murder
> if you are not given such a treatment. The contrary view would then be
> that anyone who didn't choose to have artificial life-extension treatment
> is comitting suicide, which is ridiculous. I'm certain some repellent
> lawyer(s) would LOVE to establish all kinds of goofy laws and precedents
> so that they can sue even more, but their opinions and desires are
> irrelevant and better ignored...they ARE lawyers, afterall.
>>>>
