According to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, they have reached a settlement with the family of Mary Robbins from Colorado Springs.  The Sidebar from the Colorado Gazette provides some good coverage on this dispute between the Foundation and the family.  Ms. Robbins was the woman who had signed an agreement with the Foundation to have the foundation cryopreserve (i.e. freeze) her remains for the purpose of resuscitating her at a later date. 

What complicated the issue was the $50,000 annuity that Ms. Robbins had assigned to the Foundation to pay for her upkeep.  The family took the position that the annuity belonged to them based on papers signed by Ms. Robbins in her last days and that the transfer of the annuity voided the contract with the Foundation.  The Foundation indicated that it would preserve the body even without the annuity.  Probate magistrate Barbara Hughes found that "Mary’s overarching and enduring intent to have her last remains preserved by Alcor through cryonic suspension.”   The Foundation's attorneys declare that the magistrate's opinion "stands for the principle that an individual's end-of-life directives will prevail over the preferences - even the objections - of surviving family members."

I come down hard on the side of following the wishes of the deceased.  I have one client who really wants a song about a burlesque dancer sung at his wake.  His wife insists that's not going to happen.   Both husband and wife are my clients. I also know that the husband values his wife's feelings over his whimsy.  So, if I have the privilege of attending his memorial, I plan to respect and honor both of them by softly humming the song under my breath.  But where it comes down to choosing between what the deceased wanted with his or her own body and property and what the family wants, I'm on the side of Magistrate Hughes.