Texas and Florida

[jordansparks]

Texas and Florida present a special challenge for brain preservation services. There are laws on the books in both states that companies may not accept bodies under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) unless they are accredited by the AATB. We will spend the next few years getting accredited, but it will NOT be easy. It will require a separate company with separate dedicated spaces in Oregon, Texas, and Florida, so facilities in those three states must be larger to accommodate both companies. It will also require a full time manager in Oregon and additional staffing in Texas and Florida. Unfortunately, I anticipate some other states will eventually require AATB accreditation, so this will position us to be able to keep operating in other states if this happens. If you die in Texas or Florida right now, the only option is for a funeral director to transport you across state lines before we take possession of the body. This is the case no matter who your biostasis provider is. Alcor, CI, Tomorrow, etc. are all expressly prohibited from accepting bodies within Texas or Florida. This is a huge problem that nobody seems to be talking about. Our company that will be AATB accredited is called American Body Gift.

[jordansparks]

The regulatory environment seems to be shifting in Texas and Florida over the last few months. Yes, I know that's vague, but that's the best I can do right now. It's changing for the better. Government moves slowly, so I won't really have specifics for a few more months. But it's very exciting.

[carrie_radomski]

Hi Jordan, this is very interesting. I suppose Sparks Brain Preservation is approaching this as a research organization, which may force it into the anatomical gift / NADO / AATB framework.

There have already been many cryonics cases in Texas and Florida, and my understanding is that the actual case logistics usually involve a cooperating funeral home, funeral director custody, disposition-of-remains authority, transport permits, and member or next-of-kin consent.

This is where things get confusing. Cryonics paperwork often includes anatomical gift language, but the operative pathway in the field is funeral custody rather than anatomical gift custody. This is especially obvious in Canada, where the UAGA has no legal force, yet Canadian cryonics members still sign the same contracts/documents as part of their broader consent package.

So I wonder whether it might actually be easier for a brain preservation organization to operate more like biostasis organizations, with explicit member consent and funeral-director partnership, rather than trying to fit itself entirely into the research/anatomical-gift framework.

That may not be compatible with Sparks’ intended model.