## Facts

- Orville Martin Richardson, an Iowa resident, arranged during life for post-mortem cryonic “neurosuspension” with Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a California nonprofit engaged in cryonics.
- Richardson executed signed documents, including a will-based authorization of anatomical donation, donating his “remains” to Alcor for “cryobiological and cryonic research” and authorizing Alcor to take possession of his body at death to remove and preserve his head.
- Richardson paid Alcor a substantial lifetime membership fee in connection with the arrangement.
- After Richardson developed dementia, his brother (David Richardson) and sister (Darlene Broeker) were appointed co-conservators and later served as co-administrators of his estate; they disagreed with cryonic preservation.
- When Richardson died, the siblings arranged a burial in Iowa without notifying Alcor.
- After learning of the burial, Alcor demanded the remains and sought to compel the siblings to consent to disinterment so Alcor could carry out the authorized cryonic procedure.

## Issues

1. Whether Richardson’s signed documents constituted a valid anatomical gift under Iowa’s Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (RUAGA) when the stated purpose was cryobiological and cryonic research.
2. Whether the decedent’s relatives, acting as conservators/estate administrators, could revoke or override the anatomical gift through control of final disposition and refusal to consent to disinterment.
3. Whether Iowa’s disinterment statute permitted a court to order disinterment (and compel necessary consents) to carry out a valid anatomical gift, including a nontraditional post-disinterment disposition such as cryonic preservation.

## Decision

- The court reversed the district court’s denial of relief and remanded.
- Richardson’s documents created a valid anatomical gift to Alcor for “research” within RUAGA’s permitted purposes.
- RUAGA gave priority to the donor’s decision and the donee’s rights, so the siblings lacked authority to revoke or interfere with the gift.
- Iowa’s disinterment statute authorized disinterment for “reburial or other lawful disposition,” which the court construed broadly enough to allow disinterment to effectuate the anatomical gift.
- The court directed entry of a mandatory injunction requiring the siblings to execute the approvals needed for disinterment so Alcor could take possession of the remains consistent with the gift.

## Legal Principles

- An anatomical gift may be made during life by signed instrument (including a will) for statutory purposes that include “research.”
- When a valid anatomical gift is made, the donor’s expressed intent controls; family members generally may not amend, revoke, or veto the gift.
- A donee’s statutory rights under RUAGA are superior to conflicting claims by relatives concerning disposition of remains.
- Disinterment statutes allowing disinterment for “other lawful disposition” may be applied to carry out a valid anatomical gift, even when the contemplated disposition is atypical, so long as it is lawful.

## Conclusion

The court held that a decedent may make a binding anatomical gift of his remains for cryonics-related research under Iowa RUAGA, that relatives cannot override that gift through burial decisions, and that a mandatory injunction ordering consent to disinterment is an available remedy to implement the donor’s directive.


Alcor Life Extension Found. v. Richardson, 785 N.W.2d 717 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010)