X-Message-Number: 15536 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:49:16 -0500 From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <> Subject: Re: Cryonics is our back up #15514 References: <> > Message #15514 > From: "John de Rivaz" <> > Subject: Cryonics is our back up > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:38:49 -0000 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <> > > I can only add that so do I and Paul (and I presume Mr Grimes) want to > > save our lives and those whom we love. We personally are constantly > > researching and practicing the best scientifically based life extension > > methods. Cryonics is our back up in case we do not live to the point in > > time where rejuvenation techniques are discovered, proven and > > available. I want a cryonics organization based solidly on science that > > I can verify and with a financial footing that is sound. From Mr > > Grimes' questions/comments, it sounds like he is searching for the > > same. I can't help wondering how many lurkers have wondered similarly. > > My wife and I (and friends who have signed with CI) feel the same. > Unfortunately something that is regulated to the standards of the medical > profession would be unattainable and unaffordable at this time, and doesn't > exist anyway. A "regulated" cryonics organization on the order of the medical profession was not suggested above though, when research results begin to approach the level of successful suspended animation, some such should be in place (but not governmental, please). The topic of standards, however, can be the subject of serious discussion at *this* time between members of various organizations who want science-based cryonics procedures. It may not be easy for some to put aside their "territorialism" and look at the betterment of the field as a whole, but continued factionalism in cryonics only adds to the view by outsiders of cultism. There can still be room for variation and individuality. With common standards (e.g.. Underwriters Laboratories), prospective and current members of various organizations would then have valid information for informed choices. I personally can not understand why all involved would not seek this level of "maturity" for cryonics. > Verification is impossible without a time machine so that > patients reanimated in the future could give us a report. Verification of various levels of experimental results is possible without such a supercilious proposal. > I beleive your > husband is a physicist - maybe he could come up with a verifiable method by > which information could be transmitted to the past. :-) > > Not that the standard of the medical profession are that good: > - lorry drivers would be breaking the law if they worked the hours hospital > staff are made to work. I can not speak for hospital staff in UK, but 12 hr shifts for 80 hrs total in 2 weeks is a fairly common practice in the US; some overtime may also occur. But this has nothing to do with the subject I was addressing - is there a point here or a herring? > - airlines would have deaths equivalent to a jumbo crash almost every week > if their safety results were the same as hospitals. (Sorry I recall this > from a TV program, but even if it was once a year the airlines would still > come out better) Again, is there some relevant point to this aside? > > <del> > > > I have witnessed many patients and family querying physcians, nurses, > physical > > therapists, etc. for extensive details. > > Are patients often aggressive in their questioning? (This is a genuine > question, not an attempt to make a point.) Is this to be interpreted as meaning that your questions/statements are often made "just to make a point"? I would not say that patients are *often* aggressive in their questioning. More younger patients are, but still too many will be more demanding of their car mechanic than their physicians. But there has been more encouragement from nurses to patients in the past 20 years (myself among them in the "early" days) to ask their physicians and not let him/her put them off. (I and others often broke the ice at the bedside by letting the doctor know that Mr/Mrs X wanted to know "how exactly [their] gall bladder stones formed when the diet was being followed carefully?" or "what does the mesh put in my belly look like and how will everything heal?" And then there are the terminal patients who want to know their status; these had to frequently hold off family members (who wanted to deny) while questioning the physician. (My last full-time position in nursing was as a home health nurse specializing in terminal care and at times I spent more of a visit with the family than the patient.) Many of these terminal patients needed "help" addressing their doctors due to fear, fatigue, and pain and I've always considered it the nurses' responsibility as the patient ombudsman to see that the patient received the information he/she sought. There are patients who need no assistance whatsoever in speaking with their doctors. They go into the office prepared, knowing their history, medications, and symptoms. They often have researched in books or articles - now on the Internet - and have a list of questions. (In the past 17 years, when asked medical advice, I recommended this preparation for a physician visit.) It is far easier to be an informed patient now than it was 17 years ago. Many are doing so. > If yes, how do the physicians and > surgeons handle it? Some physicians and surgeons are very good about patient questions - I gave examples of my own orthopedist and urologist and also the gastroenterologist I worked for. In addition, there was an allergist I had for a couple of years too. I personally have made it a practice to cease using a doctor who would *not* take the time to answer question fully. In fact, I changed from a family physician to his nurse practitioner just for that reason. What I did observe while still a nurse, was the busy physician who, after a few words, would turn to the nurse and ask her (very few hims in those days) to provide the patient and/or family with appropriate literature and explanation. It was then up to the nurse to complete the responsibility of informing the patient. In fact, now the surgical permits signed by the patient (frequently obtained by the nurse) are much more exacting re. the pre-op information received by the patient (informed consent - something very similar to that in the CryoCare paperwork which I signed 6 years ago). There are, I'm sure, still some physicians who are paternalistic towards their patients and tell them or insinuate that they "know best" and/or "don't worry about it". I personally find this attitude by anyone - physician, auto mechanic, hair dresser, or husband (definitely not Paul ;>) ) - repugnant. I have many times recommended that individuals seek out another physician if theirs repeatedly demonstrated this behavior. > > <del> > > > While Mr Grimes has been very polite, in my opinion, > > I think his desire for conscise information is genuine enough, but I think > his frustration has shown through in his language from time to time, and he > has lead the tone of the debate. > > > he has been very > > persistent in his attempt to get clear specific answers. Maybe this is > > what is so heavily disliked by Mr Ettinger, Mr Pascal, Mr de Rivas, and > > Mr Smith. > > I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think what is really > needed is a more precise method of correalating the information required and > produced by what has become a rather acrimonius argument. I definitely agree that CI needs "a more precise method of correalating (sic) the information required and produced" but I'm not sure what is meant by the phrasing that follows. It is more than unfortunate that a simple question about procedure details wasn't answered directly or immediately acknowledged as missing. But if correction is being made now in that part of the process, good. > CI is using this > as a method of clarifying its web site, which is all to the good as many > professionals comming across it may feel as aggressive as Mr Grimes. Good. With the Internet, more people are educated and expect good quality information on the sites they visit. > I have noticed that people in the descriptive sciences tend to be quite > aggressive and have little time for people who get even one long word wong. > This may well be why many non-cryonicists in cryobiology refuse to even > discuss cryonics rationally. The "hamburger into a cow" statement is clearly > irrational, yet it gets quoted again and again by professionals. They know > it is irrational - it is really just as much a put down as shouting obscene > language at someone. I am reading this aside as seeing the need for more science in cryonics as the ammunition to persuade non-cryonicists in cryobiology of the validity of bodily preservation for later resuscitation. This is the foundation of The Institute for Neural Cryobiology which in its Hippocampal Slice Cryopreservation Project is doing *pure science* of the highest standards. The output results can be used for (to quote from the INC website, http://www.neurocryo.org/hippocampal.html) "research into schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and ischemic brain damage" - in addition to perfected suspended animation. > I remember as a school child asking someone how to convert wave length of > radio waves into frequency - the trouble was I asked a biology teacher I > happened to be talking to. Instead of asking the question properly, I asked > "how do you convert kilocycles into metres". Instead of being told how to > convert wavelength to frequency, I got a load of rubbish about "I suppose as > well you want to convert <feet> into <watts> and so on" (can't remember what > the incompatible units were, but you must get the gist of what happened.) I > never did get the answer to the question from this teacher - I suppose he > probably didn't know really and was just blustering rather than say so. Ah, so often the tragedy of communication deficiency between parties, I sympathize with your experience. It is also a shame that the teacher - expected to be a mature and knowledgeable person - did not stop and consider whether he/she understood what you meant *before* telling you what he/she thought you wanted to know. **Kitty Antonik Wakfer More Life to Us All Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15536