Abstract
The adoption of cryonics poses fruitful questions about personhood, consumer protection, trusts, taxation, crime, human rights and other law. Cryonics involves the long term storage of human cadavers at subzero temperatures with an expectation that in the indefinite future the legally dead will be ‘reanimated’. The article discusses the culture and law of cryonics in relation to Australia. It draws on Martha Fineman’s vulnerability theory to critique claims by proponents of cryonics, asking whether unsubstantiated claims regarding reanimation are unconscionable and necessitate a specific statutory prohibition. The article further considers the implications for health, welfare and other law if cryonics was practical.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 43-77 |
| Number of pages | 35 |
| Journal | Canberra Law Review |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2020 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Thawing Out Personhood, Unconscionability and Succession in Cryonics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver