X-Message-Number: 17634
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:49:32 -0400
Subject: Serious Undertakings (Repost part 2, plus an addition)
From: 

To conclude the first part:
 
I'd like to end this oration on funeral directors with a small personal
aside.  I really kind of sympathize with Mr. Driven From The Pack,
because, though his notions about funeral directors really are
demonstrably thin, I felt the same way myself when I was first thinking
of cryonics.  Standby teams -- cutting-edge dudes in Star Trek uniforms,
hurrah!   'Funeral directors'?  Humpbacked nineteenth-century
grave-robbers out of the pages of Dickens --ugh.  I had no idea what
their qualifications were, or even what 'enbalming' was.  Spraying with
fixative maybe?  I didn't know.  But the longer I looked into it and
studied the facts, the different things started to look.  The plain fact
is that funeral directors are on average far more and far better  trained
in surgical skills, much more experienced.  Check it out: 
http://www.nfda.org.  But -- best of all -- they're *there*, on the spot,
virtually everywhere.  I mean, let's face it:  cryonics members and
organizations have a real problem:  the vast majority of members just
don't live next door to a standby team.  Hell, CI has members in Hungary,
Israel, Spain, Switzerland, Alaska.  What do we do if they die?  Let them
lie there while we gather up our merry band and pack our toothbrushes and
CPRs and catch a flight?  What if something like this Trade Center
bombing happens and flights are cancelled or re-directed or put on hold? 
Five *minutes* of warm ischemia can cause devastating damage.  What do
you think *days* of it can cause?  This is a problem that has to be
addressed.  And the best solution we have, I believe, consists of using
funeral directors.  They're surgically trained, they're licensed, they're
on the spot, they're used to dealing with hospitals and doctors, with
legal paperwork and transport, with grieving relatives -- they are, quite
simply, the best option that *most* of us have.  

I am not saying that you *have* to go with that option.  If you happen to
live in Phoenix and you have exactly ten days to live, fine:  sign with
Alcor, and use their standby team.  If you happen to live in the Detroit
area, fine:  sign with CI, and use our standby team.  But I think we
should all at least acknowledge that CI, in adopting its funeral director
policy, has adopted a serious and *reasoned* policy which certainly
deserves better than this 'witches brew' caricature that we are forever
getting.  CI's policy here -- and elsewhere -- is a well-thought-out
response to an extremely serious problem that cryonicists face.  And I
think CI's policy will in most cases reduce ischemic damage and in some
cases save entire lives.  I think panning it, particularly in the
mean-spirited way of 'anonymous' posts, unproven accusations, and cartoon
slander, contributes absolutely nothing.  No, I don't consider the
funeral director system to be ideal.  Ideally, one day, cryo-trained
ambulance attendants will take patients to cryo-trained medical doctors
in cryo-ready hospitals where state-of-the-art procedures will be
performed in operating theatres.  One day.  But this is not that day. 
Here, now, we are obliged to provide cryonics members with the best
treatment that we reasonably can under present-day real-life
circumstances.  Trained professional funeral directors can provide it
quicker and better than distant, comparatively unskilled, comparatively
inexperienced volunteers.

And just suppose something.  Suppose that, as CI expands, we find
ourselves one day in a situation where a CI funeral director -- a person
with surgical skills, cryonics-specific training, and perfusing equipment
and solutions at hand -- is standing there ready for an emergency in
every major city in the United States, perhaps even in Europe.   Guess
what:  it really might not be that far away.  Would that be such a
tragedy?  Maybe -- with a little better cooperation between organizations
-- it might prevent a tragedy.  Maybe several.

David Pascal
http://www.cryonics.org

***

P.S.:  In Message #17617, "clarissa wells" -- yet another anonymous
poster, I understand, according to Cryonet Archive Message # -- wrote:

>> An agent of a cryonics organization has been in a newspaper and on a
radio station saying that when he perfuses dead people for cryonics he
uses substances that have no scientific basis and are not in the cryonics
organization's manual.<<

A newspaper that was not named, from a publisher that was not named, in
an article that was not presented.  An article which is said to have been
written the year that 'the agent' (don't you love all these
cloak-an-dagger affectations, gang?) joined the 'cryonics organization'
and so might possibly have predated his even knowing what cryonics is at
all.   A reputable source, eh?  As for the radio station story, 'the
agent' simply had a slip of the tongue, said so plainly and publicly,
expressed his regrets, and added that of course he followed CI procedures
to the letter, as he has been instructed to do by phone, mail, email, and
personally in the course of two trips from London to Michigan.  

Who revealed this scandalous radio slip, by the way?  Not the people who
suddenly jumped up to confirm (with zero evidence) that they had known
the shocking facts for a decade, but a CI-related website which posted it
publicly and still posts it on the (apparently foolish) assumption that
grown-ups are capable of regarding an simple human slip for what it was. 

>> The cryonics organization is not going to try to find out what
actually was used. It says it doesn't even know how to. Even if it wanted
to. Which it doesn't.<<

The cryonics organization *said* that it supplied its own solutions and
cryoprotectants to 'the agent', who *said*, in his report and publicly,
that he applied them according to instructions.  And when the  patient
arrived at CI HQ and was examined, that was seen to be the case.    I
mean, come on:  cryonic suspension with 'perfumed water' rather than CI's
cryoprotectants? CI's been in business over twenty-five years, please,
give us *some* credit.   We can double-check, of course:  just thaw the
patient -- and scramble the person's neuroanatomy into muck.  Will we do
that for "Miss Wells"?  Sorry.

May we put aside the cut-and-thrust of rhetoric for a moment and be
serious?  Willful malpractice is a not a joke; not to me.  I actually
care about CI members.  I don't want them hurt.  Believe me, if I had any
reason to believe a funeral director were injuring CI members, I would be
the first person in line to denounce him -- not just on Cryonet, but to
the authorities.  It would be CI's first official neurosuspension:  for
we would have his head.  There are thousands of quaified funeral
directors in the world:  CI has no reason whatsoever to maintain any
connection with someone doing a willfully bad job.  Heck, I've visited
England.  I'll probably do so again.  If I had a heart attack there in
the street, I could very well be 'the agent' 's next patient myself.  I
have a very good reason for wanting to be certain that a funeral director
is doing a good job:  he might be doing it on me.

But what sort of 'evidence' is this?  A man is accused of bragging to the
press that, quote, "his cryonics cases were first injected with lanolin
and Rosewater"  *five years*  before he even *has* a cryonics case?  
These aren't charges that reveal any problems at CI:  they only reveal
the absurd depths to which CI's critics let themselves sink.  

>>Now people are calling for discussions about the matter to be "toned
down" in case possible new recruits get the idea that cryonics is "a
small cult of amazingly poorly adjusted loonies".<<

Golly, where would new recruits ever get that notion?  I certainly don't
want this discussion to be "toned down" -- as with all cheesy accusations
full of holes, the process of refuting it only makes CI's position look
good and the mystery attackers look shabby.  I don't think Cryonet has
ever been treated to as extensive a discussion of funeral directors'
qualifications, skills, oversight, or to the substantive case that can be
made for their use.  Personally I hope the attacks go on forever.  I
could post (just under) 20,000K a day on the virtues of CI till
Christmas.  2008.   Every author has his inspiration and his muse:  I
guess Charles and "Clarissa" are mine.

>> And yet you have trouble understanding why cryonics is not more
mainstream. <<

I have no trouble understanding that at all.  False rumors, anonymous
posts, slander without evidence, pointless malice, dismissal of all
common sense -- really, at times one wants to throw one's hands up in
disgust.

It is very simple to make cryonics more mainstream.  If you are a
scientist or researcher, do research that advances cryonics technically. 
If you are medical doctor, volunteer to advise or to help or simply
support the idea to the press and to colleagues.  If you are a member,
make sure that you and perhaps your family are safe by making
preparations with your cryonics provider, your lawyer, your doctor, your
funeral director; and, if you can, support your provider with donations
or bequests in your will.  If you are a member or just someone interested
and sympathetic, read and study and then stand up and support cryonics
intelligently and lucidly when the opportunity arises.  And if you are a
member of 'the cryonics community', learn to politely tolerate diversity
of opinions and approaches, and use your head to try to come up with
useful suggestions and improvements, small and large.  To join the
mainstream, appeal to the mainstream:  be courteous, be informed, be
reasonable, be polite.  Simply present yourself as a decent human being
advocating a sane, sympathetic, compassionate, scientifically-supported
way of possibly saving lives.  The mainstream likes people like that. 
Really.

And to make to make cryonics marginal and grotesque?  Hide behind a mask
and spread unsubstantiated rumors and silly anonymous charges day after
day after day.  That'll keep cryonics out of the mainstream for a long
long time.

>> I hope no one is suggesting whitewashing a cover-up. <<

Of course not.  We need the whitewash to re-perfuse Walt Disney when the
CIA brings him over for a touch-up this weekend. (Ooops!  No, wait!  I
meant Chanel Number 5!  Chanel Number 5!)

David Pascal
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17634