X-Message-Number: 23508
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:07:01 -0700 (MST)
Subject: An Open Letter Concerning Cryonics Regulation, By Brian Wowk, PhD
From: "Mathew Sullivan" <>

An Open Letter Concerning Cryonics Regulation

The following open letter has been provided by Dr. Brian Wowk, a prominent
organ preservation researcher, in support of Alcor's opposition to HB 2637
that is pending in the Arizona state legislature.

How media sensationalism catalyzed
an assault on individual rights in Arizona

By Brian Wowk, PhD

February 22, 2004

"No man's life, liberty or property are safe
while the Legislature is in session"

                Judge Gideon J. Tucker (1866)

Since 1972, more than 700 people have made arrangements to be
cryopreserved by the Alcor Life Extension Foundation of Scottsdale,
Arizona. These people believe their right to choose Alcor, and the
procedures performed by Alcor, are as fundamentally important as the right
of all dying patients to choose their own care. In the case of Alcor, its
members believe that the neurological information archived by Alcor might
someday save their lives by allowing access to advanced future technology.

While cryonics remains controversial, a cursory review of the numerous
writings and conduct of people in the field shows that they are sincere.
It also appears that Alcor in particular seeks and implements the best
technologies it can find to achieve its objectives. In most cases these
technologies have been implemented under the guidance of physicians and
scientists from mainstream medicine who are experts in their field.

Yet on Feb. 6, 2004, bill HB 2637 was introduced into the Arizona
legislature. This bill would remove authority over cryonics in Arizona
from medical doctors and scientists operating under the Uniform Anatomical
Gift Act (UAGA), and transfer authority to the Arizona Board of Funeral
Directors and Embalmers. This is despite the fact that cryonics as
practiced by Alcor does not resemble embalming in any manner. Even though
cryonics is implemented after legal death, Alcor uses medical methods to
preserve neurological information in living tissue, not to cosmetically
preserve dead bodies. For embalmers to assume authority over procedures
created by brain resuscitation experts, thoracic surgeons, neurosurgeons,
and organ preservation scientists, would be comparable to the Funeral
Board assuming authority over the job of a brain surgeon.

The bill is being justified on the basis of consumer protection and "right
to know" about cryonics procedures. In fact Alcor has explained its
procedures in detail in its magazine, books, monographs, and contracts for
decades, and on the Internet for many years. Even the most unsophisticated
Alcor members seem to know more about Alcor procedures than funeral
clients know about embalming or cremation. There are no public reports
that even a single Alcor member (i.e. consumer) wants this legislation. In
fact, on cryonics discussion lists, the cryonics consumer reaction to
regulatory moves in recent months has been anger. Instead of being treated
with technology designed by scientists to preserve life, the final
authority over their treatment would be transferred to a regulatory board
that specializes in cosmetics and chemicals that destroy life.

The bill does not appear to be backed by anyone who has a personal
interest in cryonics. Furthermore, the regulatory board that this bill
would impose on Alcor has made alarming comments about cryonics. Arizona
Funeral Board Director Rudy Thomas has been quoted as saying, "There's no
difference between cryonics and cremation," (Arizona Capitol Times, 23
Sept 2003) and "These companies need to be regulated or deregulated out of
business" (New York Times, 14 Oct 2003). Even if Mr. Thomas is merely
indifferent to cryonics, and not hostile, what assurance is there that his
successor would feel the same? The bill gives the Funeral Board a blank
slate to prescribe or proscribe cryonics procedures, even though it
disclaims the entire purpose of the field. It is "consumer protection"
championed by non-consumers over the objections of actual consumers of
cryonics. How did Alcor ever become the target of such patently wrong
legislation?

Allegations of Wrongdoing

During the month of August, 2003, a Sports Illustrated article alleging
wrongdoing by Alcor appeared on newsstands. The article alleged that a
head had been separated from a body, "shaved, drilled with holes,
accidentally cracked as many as 10 times...." In the article, and
especially in the media coverage that followed, these allegations were
presented as shocking news of mishandling and negligence at Alcor.

The Facts

Alcor has been performing neuropreservation (preservation of the brain
within the head) as a cryonics procedure for decades. Most Alcor members
prefer neuropreservation, in part because it results in less brain injury
than whole body freezing. Cryonicists believe that preservation of the
brain is the most important part of cryonics. Most "patients" now in
storage at Alcor are in fact neuropreservation cases. That Alcor preserves
brains within heads is almost common knowledge. The only thing new in
recent media reports about neuropreservation at Alcor is the
sensationalization of the procedure.

What about "drilled with holes?" To monitor the state of the brain during
its procedures, Alcor makes two small (1/4") holes in the skull using a
standard neurosurgical tool called a perforator. That's it. Any brain
surgery patient in any hospital will have these same holes made using the
same tool to begin a procedure called craniotomy to access the brain. One
can only imagine why Sports Illustrated chose to draw attention to such a
minor procedure, and describe it with the words it did.

What about cracking? In September, 1984, Alcor published in Cryonics
magazine the first paper that documented fracturing as a problem in large
organs cooled to the temperature of liquid nitrogen. Mainstream scientific
journals (Cryobiology) have since published research suggesting that
fracturing (not breaking) is to be expected in all large organs preserved
by vitrification during cooling below -150 C. Ironically, the same week
that the Sports Illustrated story came out, Carnegie Mellon University
announced a $1.3 million grant from the federal government specifically to
solve the problem of fracturing during cryopreservation. None of this
research would be going on if the cause of fracturing were careless
handling, as implied by media coverage.

Virtues Portrayed as Vices

Perhaps the most unfair aspect of the allegations against Alcor is that
conscientious and well-justified procedures were perceived as wrongdoing.

    * Why does Alcor remove heads? Because, according to Alcor, that
allows the best possible preservation of the brain. The brain is the
primary target of preservation in cryonics.

    * Why doesn't Alcor just remove the brain? Because the brain would be
injured in the process.

    * Why does Alcor make two small holes in the skull? To properly
monitor the brain.

    * Why does Alcor get "cracks"? All large organs treated with chemicals
to suppress ice formation develop invisible fractures during deep
cooling. Alcor was the first institution anywhere to discover and
monitor fracturing with a unique acoustic (sound detection)
technology. Nobody would even know about this problem were it not for
Alcor's extraordinary efforts to measure and document it during
cryonics cases.

Sensational Journalism

Other articles following the Sports Illustrated story were even more
extreme. The same source cited in the Sports Illustrated story was quoted
delivering a rich variety of inflammatory invectives, including
"unethical", "sickening", "ghastly", "horrific", "desecrated",
"destroyed." Surgical instruments became woodworking tools. Cryogenic
dewars, named after their inventor, became "gods" named after a brand of
whiskey. (Florida Today, 16 Aug 2003).

Journalists continued the escalation. A former COO became a former CEO
(Associated Press, 15 Aug 2003). Two small holes became "drilled with
holes" (Sports Illustrated, 18 Aug 2003). "Drilled with holes" became
"cracked when holes were drilled in it" (Arizona Capitol Times, 17 Feb
2004). Local TV stations produced graphic animations showing a skull
cracking and splitting open. (There has never been a reported case in
published scientific literature, or Alcor technical reports, of bone ever
fracturing during cryopreservation.) And the witch hunt was on.

Consider if a journalist did this expose of the funeral industry: "Funeral
Home Scandal: Bodies injected with poison, organs mutilated, remains
stuffed into wood boxes and covered with dirt!" It's all true, right? Of
course, if a disgruntled apprentice embalmer went to a sports magazine
describing in graphic detail the use of a trocar during embalming of a
sports celebrity, or the physical effects of cremation, he would be
escorted out of the building by security.

The Question of Regulation

Arguments for funeral board regulation of cryonics neglect a very basic
difference between the way Alcor and the funeral industry operate. Most
funeral business is "at-need," meaning that grieving families seek to
arrange services for their loved ones after they are deceased. There is no
time for research or investigation of the product or facility performing
the procedure. Cryonics, however, is almost entirely "pre-need." People
join Alcor before they need Alcor, and typically spend years "kicking the
tires" before they finally join. It's very rare for Alcor to accept
cryonics cases arranged by next-of-kin. Unless there is a history of
involvement or interest in cryonics by the family, informed consent is
practically impossible under such circumstances.

The best proof that Alcor handles informed consent well is that in 32
years of Alcor history, no reports can be found of anyone choosing
cryonics with Alcor ever going to reporters or authorities to complain
that they were misled by Alcor, or regretted their choice of Alcor. Even
the family members reported by media to have arranged the cryopreservation
alleged by Sports Illustrated (the two youngest children) have expressed
no dissatisfaction. Only the eldest daughter, who never wanted cryonics,
has complained. Similarly, the disgruntled ex-employee who alleged
wrongdoing at Alcor has apparently disclaimed interest in cryonics for
himself (New York Times, 14 Aug 2003).

Where, then, are the dissatisfied consumers? Where are the unhappy Alcor
members? Where are the family members that wanted cryonics for a loved
one, but were let down by it? There appear to be none. There are only
people who don't understand cryonics, people who don't want cryonics, and
people who don't like what they read in newspapers about cryonics. That is
not sufficient justification for a majority to use government force to
assume control of a technology desired by a minority with beliefs
different from theirs.

Respectfully,

Brian Wowk, PhD
Physicist and Cryobiologist
Corona, California

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23508