X-Message-Number: 32445
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:49:12 -0600
From: "York W. &/or Lois G. Porter" <>
Subject: Re: cryonics terminology

Wednesday, March 3, 2010
9:20 a.m. CST

My e-mail has, as it has for the past several months, been giving me fits. 
Repairman down yesterday for about the sixth or seventh time and I'm still 
not sure that it's working right. At any rate, it has slowed down my 
ability to respond and this is part of the reason for this belated reply to 
David's points.

As to my presenting  (messages 32394,32395) the four "cautionary" points, 
slightly modified, from Mike Darwin's article from Cryonics magazine of 
April 1990, as a way to keep down claims of "scam" on the part of cryonics, 
DSS wrote (in message 32397):

"This kind of narrow legalism is not the real question we have been
discussing. It is important, but only secondarily. Legal decisions, in
particular, jury decisions, are often based upon 'community standards'
or a climate of opinion. If cryonics is regarded as a scam or a cult,
because it uses terms that are in opposition to their everyday
utilization, no amount of legalistic detail is likely to save the day
(in court)."

My reply:

My understanding was that the real question that was being discussed was 
the appropriate use of terminology and its effect on how the community at 
large views us. I suppose the four paragraphs I mentioned seem like "narrow 
legalism" as written but the wider point, which I do believe relates 
directly to the original discussion, is that the wording is about our most 
important asset and that is our integrity. As I believe Steve Bridge wrote 
in a recent point/different thread, the presentation of cryonics by folks 
who are intelligent, reasonable, friendly, successful people seems to aid 
the effort. All those things can certainly be said, for instance, about the 
"father of cryonics". The wording Mike used (and I somewhat modified) may 
be able to be presented in a better fashion but the point is, in part, to 
show that we aren't some sort of "starry eyed idealists/fanatics/cult 
members" ala a group like the Heaven's Gate bunch that committed suicide 
because "the great spaceship was supposed to be following the Hale-Bopp 
comet" back in the  late 1990s. To me, no one that reads/hears/is exposed 
openly and honestly to the four points mentioned could conclude that we are 
some sort of a  scam or cult by any reasonable definition of the term,. 
which, as I understood it, was the whole point of the original discussion.

Again, our presenting the four points "up front" and clearly (I would say, 
preferably in large and bold type) on appropriate documents and contracts 
as well as verbally in, perhaps, less formal fashion and, for that matter, 
in our actions as well, seems to me to lead an outside observer to the 
inevitable conclusion that we all aren't running around believing something 
just because we want to believe it (seemingly a necessary component of 
cults). Further, it shows that we recognize the possible limitations of our 
efforts. The use of the word patient in the context we use it is, in my 
view, perfectly ethical as long as we clearly define it in a way analogous 
to CPR, i.e, we don't dispute that there is a point where "dead is dead" 
(the most extreme example that I can readily think of being if you are at 
the center of a thermonuclear explosion). The argument is over just whether 
the patients entrusted to our care are "beyond all help" (i.e., 
biologically dead/frozen corpses) or whether they are just "beyond present 
help". If the latter, they could rationally, reasonably, and just as 
important, ethically be classified as individuals who are undergoing an 
experimental process that is quite a logical one to undertake given the 
options/evidence available.

It seems to me to do otherwise increases, again, the risk of conceding the 
moral high ground to our opponents. It seems this could subject the men and 
women who have entrusted themselves to our care to being given no more 
consideration than those lying in a traditional cemetary and subject, 
therefore, to the same lack of consideration if societal desires (a new 
superhighway, etc.) seem to warrant their being thawed out and 
cremated/planted in the ground. It changes the argument from one of whether 
people placed in cryonic suspension are truly in a situation where their 
basic humanity and the possibility of future restored physical life should 
be deeply respected to one where we basically would have to state, in the 
every day usage of language: "Well, we've got these frozen corpses stored, 
some of which have been decapitated/had only their brains stored but we're 
confident that we can take those frozen corpses/frozen heads/frozen brains 
and bring them back to life some day".

All of the last sentence in the previous paragraph is again consistent, as 
far as I can tell, with  the every day utilization of language  Just 
doesn't seem, to me at least, to have the same "ring" as presenting 
cryonics for what I think it is and that is an attempt to get to people as 
near to the time of clinical death as possible (and that includes, 
hopefully some day, before clinical death) and subject them to an 
experimental procedure using the best technology that research and 
resources can provide, and to store them and consider them with the same 
consideration we would patients in a hospital until we know for certain 
that the procedure works or it doesn't. No different, in my view, than the 
patients we now deal with in cardiac arrest situations in the emergency 
room whom we work on (and occasionally work on and work on and work on and 
work on) until we are convinced that there is nothing else reasonable for 
us to do. The term "patient" seems to apply equally to those individuals 
and individuals in cryonic suspension as well using the same "yardstick" if 
you will. As far as the being beyond "present help" phrase, it also applied 
to persons whom I dealt with in the ambulance trade, some of whom were 
beyond me doing much beyond anything other than "holding the line" until my 
partner and I could get them to definitive care. We were taught in EMS work 
that frequently our job was to simply try to prevent any further damage or 
at least minimize any further damage, some of which might come through the 
procedures we were using, as opposed to correcting existing damage, until 
we could get the person, at some point obviously in the future, to help. 
Again, to me at least, this is exactly analogous to the people we have in 
cryonic suspension and the word "patient" seems to apply, ethically and 
rationally, to both groups..


As far as the ramifications about jury decisions being based on "community 
standards", Louis Nizer, the prominent attorney from a few decades back, 
wrote, as best as I remember,that frequently the effort in court is to get 
the judge/jury wanting to rule your way and then providing them with some 
sort of legal basis for them to do so. I suppose this ties in to your point 
but I also see it as indicating that being viewed by the community as 
rational folks, etc. as Steve Bridge wrote, is going to be a very important 
component in those community standards as they develop. I think to 
basically give up the idea that cryonics is much closer to experimental 
medical care than anything else one can think of is what would result in 
less sympathy for our efforts and not more.


Given your knowledge in the area, I am curious how social movement theory 
looks at Christianity which is, of course, one of the major religions in 
the world. It started off, however, as a situation in which its chief 
figure was nailed to a cross by the Romans. On top of that, it's concepts, 
though perhaps not its use of every day language, would certainly seem to 
be at odds with every day experience. A few hundred years later (not bad by 
mass communication not being available), it was the state religion of the 
Roman Empire. I'm supposing this might relate to what I hope is your 
incorrect (but you may be right) thinking that cryonics may have to go 
through a lot of fits and starts before it is widely accepted. The fact 
that numerous members of this religion were executed themselves for having 
the "audacity" to believe in it shows, I suppose, that being a proponent of 
cryonics in this thankfully modern society where freedom of speech and 
thought is supposed to be one of our cornerstones isn't so bad after all. 
But,  again, I'm curious how social movement theory deals with this example 
of an initially very small group in a distant outpost of the Empire and how 
it managed to gain such prominence. Are there lessons there for our concept 
as well?? Thanks for your interesting earlier reply and am looking forward 
to this one as well.

York

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32445