X-Message-Number: 2422 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 02:34:14 CDT From: (Will Dye) Subject: CRYONICS: Follow-up on friend with cancer (Follow-up on friend with terminal cancer.) I posted a message a while back concerning a friend of mine (my brother-in-law) who was diagnosed with inoperable cancer. I want to again thank Ralph Merkle, Thomas Donaldson, Keith Henson, Richard Schroeppel, and others who generously took the time to offer their advice. Your kindness is deeply appreciated. I recently had the chance to talk with my friend about various alternate treatments, cryonics among them. He decided against it. He isn't afraid of dying, he just wants to see his daughters (ages 5, 3, and 1) grow up. Cryonics doesn't offer that. He desperately wants a cure, but he would rather spend his money on other alternate treatments, and reserve the remainder of his estate for his family. I'm putting some other matters on hold while I help him research alternate protocols. For me, this experience has been both painful and thought- provoking (it's curious how the two are so often related). After a long period of skepticism, I've become convinced that molecular nanotechnology will work. I remain skeptical of cryonics, but I simply haven't had the time to give the subject proper scrutiny; so I must admit that my misgivings are a natural reaction to an unusual new theory, not a supported conviction that cryonics won't work. I promised Ralph Merkle that I would carefully read & comment on his paper "The Technical Feasibility of Cryonics" when things settle down. I look forward to it. Despite my reservations, I am convinced that cryonics should at least be regarded as an option rather than as suicide, since it is a clear _attempt_ to preserve life. I support anti-suicide laws in principle, but it is ironic that the laws passed to promote the value of life now impede those who are desperately trying to preserve it. Surely we must be more careful and flexible in our legislation. Perhaps this idea of "attempt" can be a key to new ideas in legislation. I've often thought that if I were comatose and not responding to standard treatment (which mostly consists of "wait and see"), it would be my wish that doctors try something, _anything_, to try to revive me. I'd rather die on the operating table, fighting like crazy for my life. At least the doctors would learn something from the experiment. While this approach certainly has problems, it avoids the key problem of terminating patients, since a clear attempt is being made to improve their lives. We aren't "giving up" anymore. In other words, it is improper to terminate the continuation of a life simply because someone thinks the life doesn't have sufficient quality; but it is acceptable, under controlled circumstances, to _risk_ the continuation of a life in order to improve its quality. In this model, if an operation is an honest attempt to improve and preserve life, then the burden of proof is on those who say the risk of death is in fact certain death. Since we don't know if cryonics will or will not work, then it would be allowed (with some controls), even if the patient wasn't yet in the state of legal death. Similarly, the medical tradition just doesn't seem to understand that when the standard treatment has almost no chance of working, it's OK to try something unusual. Feh! I'm digressing again. I need to shut up and get back to work. Much to do. I've spent too long on this already, but I hope you've found it interesting. As for my friend, I'm glad that he was given the option. Unless solid scientific evidence is produced that cryonics will not work, I hope that your field will emerge from its lunatic- fringe status, so that others may be given the same option. Thanks again, --Will Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2422