X-Message-Number: 1563
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 13:00:27 GMT
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS

Thank you all very much for your replies, it is good to know other
people consider the bad possiblities of suspension as well as the
good possibities. But as you point out life itself, either animated
or suspended, will always involve risk. We run the risk of nightmare
scenarios everyday. For example, I could be involved in a 
road traffic accident tomorrow and end up completely paralysed for
the rest of my life. Strangely I don't worry about this at all.
I suppose it's because it is a risk that everyone takes everyday.
I think there must be some sort of `herd instinct', which allays
fears if one does what everyone else does but reacts against situations
that seem to be adventurous - like cryonic suspension.

My arguments about unlimited suffering in a future `Hell' did have
somewhat religious overtones. I myself do not believe in a God or
and afterlife, but my argument was very similar to what I believe
was Pascal's argument. He said that the most rational course
would be to try to believe in God 
as, even if the likelihood of there being a God is small, the 
consequences of not believing in Him might be unlimited suffering
in Hell.

 I suppose the reason I do not find this argument compelling
is that I rate the chance of there being a God effectively zero.
I do not mean mathematically zero but physically zero, as I believe
the hypothesis of a God is not consistent with observed physical law.
In the case of realistic bad scenarios occuring, either involving
suspension or not, I cannot say that the probability is effectively
zero. But I suppose Pascal's argument still isn't very compelling as
the concept of unlimited suffering is not well defined. For example
one might assume that it is impossible for finite beings to experience
infinite suffering, their brains would simply keep `resetting to zero'!

I suppose one area, related to the risk of suffering,
that might be of concern to cryonicists is that of the right the
individual to have control over his or her body. I personally
believe that the right to euthanasia, for example, is a basic human right.
I understand that a law upholding this right opens up the grave possibility
of people taking their lives for impulsive reasons. I was thinking that 
one could have a system in which an applicant for voluntary
euthanasia would be required to wait for a period, maybe about 6 months,
during which time he or she would receive counselling from medical
professionals. If at the end of that period the applicant still wanted
euthansia it should be carried out by an organisation that was carefully
controlled and monitored by the law courts. Of course, the enforced
decision period could be reduced in the case of suffering caused by
a rapidly deteriorating organic condition. I would like to know what
other people think about this proposal.

Perhaps the same law upholding the rights of the individual
 could also include the right
to entrust the care of one's body to a third party after death.
I have read some messages on the danger of autopsies on suspended
patients. I must admit I still feel that autopsies might still be
justified under certain circumstances, for example to provide evidence
for the prosecution in the case of a murder. Perhaps suspended patients
should still have rights but not quite to the same extent as animated
people. At least those rights should include a clause that prevents coroners
performing autopsies on the brains of suspended patients.

-- John Eastmond

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1563