X-Message-Number: 2908
Date: 18 Jul 94 01:22:54 EDT
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: CRYONICS termination

Doug Skrecky writes:

<<What appears to be lacking in cases like the suspension termination
of Sylvia Graham is a credible backup plan so that if the primary mode
of preservation fails not all is lost. The competing demands for the
preservation of Sylvia's corpse (by her husband) and for a Christian
burial (by her sister) are not entirely mutually exclusive. Although
permafrost burial or desiccation would appear to be unacceptible to one
party there is yet still another alternative...>>

Actually, the existing Alcor contract does call out for exactly the kind of
thing Doug refers to.  The paperwork (at least when I left Alcor) called for a
fall back position of chemical preservation and conventional interment.  This
was in the Alcor paperwork since I put there sometime in the early '80's.

There are some problems with it however, which were not apparent at the time:

1) Probably the patient's brain will be fractured into pieces -- this will make
delivery of fixative by perfusion impossible or very problematic.


2) Diffusion is a crummy way to fix someone's brain (I know, I have real data on
this from real patients now!).  

3) In order to do this it would be necessary to remove the brain -- a
complication which, while not impossible in many situations may be in some.


Having noted the above I would also note something else:  if alternatives such

Doug describes were taken, I would bet my bottom dollar that *nobody* would talk
about them in a case like this where you have mad-dog family members nipping at
your heels.  I want to make clear that I have no idea what Mr. Graham did and I
can say (and be believed) that Alcor is hardly likely to take me into *their*
confidence on such a matter.

I would however note that the Alcor and I believe CryoCare paperwork, where not
impeded by legal process, *does* currently provide for such an alternative.
While I have certainly had (and continue to have) my differences with Alcor, I
have no doubt that they explored and utilized every possible means to conserve
this patient which did not jeopardize the cryopreservations of others (current
and future).  If Mrs. Graham was lost, it was only because there truly was *no*
other alternative.  Certainly,  we are all agreed that chemical fixation and
secure interment in a sealer casket with a sacrifical electrode, and  placement
of the casket in a well protected concerete vault is an excellent idea when
there are no other alternatives.

Again, however, I would caution that removal of the brain would be vital and
since this would be necessary in any event, it might make more sense to handle
its interment within the casket or outside it, separately.

I would also note that there is no law preventing the next-of-kin from pursuing
an autopsy where it is not opposed by the decedent.  I would further note that
retaining tissue samples, including whole organs, for subsequent pathological
evaluation is completely routine, standard, acceptable and legal procedure.
Hell, the Riverside Coroners' Office employees left a 17-year-old girls' heart
in a  baggie on their back yard picnic bench when they moved away from their
house (not to mention bags and buckets of brains, intestines, livers, and so on
in their garage!).  

Each case is however, different, and I would not even begin to speculate about
the obtstacles Alcor may have encountered.  I do know about this case from the
early days of my involvement with it, and I can tell you from my personal
contact with them that Mrs. Grahams relatives (sister and brother-in-law) are
wealthy, unreasonable and inflexible people who are bitterly opposed to
cryonics.  Not a good combination.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2908