X-Message-Number: 4925
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 95 15:51:59
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: Why not a straight freeze?
To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, President
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
September 27, 1995
In reply to: Message #4918
Date: Sep 95 12:59:12 EDT
From: "Kent, Saul" <>
Subject: Straight Freeze
Which was in reply to: Message #4916
Date: 25 Sep 1995 06:33:57 U
From: "Norton, Brook" <>
Subject: straight freeze
I think Saul missed the point on Brook's posting. Brook basically
said that he thought a "straight-freeze" (a suspension without washout
and cryoprotective perfusion) sounded like a cheaper, possibly viable
option and wondered if current cryonics companies would offer such an
option.
Saul replied:
> The primary reason I consider his approach to be unreasonable was
>stated in my last message. It is because of the fact that NO CRYONICS
>COMPANY CURRENTLY OFFERS A STRAIGHT-FREEZE OPTION, NOR TO MY KNOWLEDGE
>DO ANY COMPANIES INTEND TO OFFER IT IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE! The fact
>that Mr. Norton says he is not interested in starting a cryonics
>company, but is simply making a "suggestion" to existing companies
>underscores my point. Unless he has strong evidence that one of the
>existing companies expects to offer straight freezing in the
>foreseeable future, Mr. Norton's suggestion is, in my opinion,
>unreasonable.
Saul is saying that Brook Norton's suggestion that someone offer a
straight freeze option is a bad idea because no one *will* offer one.
That's a circular argument and does not answer Brook's real questions:
*Why* won't the cryonics groups offer this option?
Would a straight freeze indeed be a "viable" option; i.e., would it
preserve identity for future revival?
These questions have been asked often in the past. The answers are
still the same, from my point of view (and I think my view is still
largely the same as the majority view on Alcor's Board, although new
information in the future could change our minds).
Cryonics groups don't offer this as a standard option because it
seems less likely to work. Even the best cryonic suspension cannot be
proven to preserve individual identity. However, the research that has
been done so far, both in cryonics and in cryobiology, seems to indicate
that preservation with cryoprotectants preserves tissue structure
markedly better than straight freezing. (Others here are more able than
I to discuss the details of this research.)
We cannot yet quantify the differences in the approaches. We
cannot say that cryoprotectants allow us to preserve 5 times more
structure or 100 times more structure. And we cannot even definitively
state *which* structures are best preserved with cryoprotection,
although work is moving forward on that answer. However, it is pretty
clear that cryoprotected tissue looks better after freezing than
unprotected tissue does.
So when we compare these two methods, we are left with several
possible outcomes:
1. Cryoprotected frozen brains retain enough identity-critical
structure to revive individuals; but straight frozen brains do not.
2. Cryoprotected frozen brains retain enough identity-critical
structure to revive individuals; however, straight frozen brains lose
some portion of identity-critical so that individuals can be revived,
but changed in some important way or with partial "amnesia."
3. Cryoprotection does not matter: both cryoprotected frozen brains and
straight frozen brains retain *enough* identity-critical structure to
revive individuals.
4. Cryoprotection does not matter: *neither* cryoprotected frozen
brains nor straight frozen brains retain enough identity-critical
structure to revive individuals.
5. Because of some as-yet unnoticed effect of glycerol or other
cryoprotectants on *brain tissue*, straight frozen brains retain enough
identity-critical structure to revive individuals (in whole or in part);
but cryoprotected frozen brains do not, even though it is clear in
general that cryoprotected cells survive better than straight frozen
ones.
This simple recitation of possible outcomes makes it sound like
these outcomes are equally possible; but they are not. Enough research
has been done on frozen tissue over the last four decades for us to be
very confident that more cells survive freezing with cryoprotection than
without, and that the damage done by adding cryoprotectant is less than
the damage done by straight freezing.
Therefore, we try to look at these odds and come up with a protocol
that is more likely to result in preservation of information.
Now, if one of Alcor's Suspension Members is found in such a
condition that cryoprotectant perfusion is not possible (because of clot
blockage of vessels, injury or autopsy severe enough to make perfusion
impossible, or severe time delay), do we straight freeze their brain or
do we bury them? Of course, we straight freeze their brains because
that is the conservative thing to do. It is the last ditch procedure
for what is still pretty much a last ditch effort anyway.
Does this cost Alcor less? Yes, but perhaps only about $15,000
less. Transport and cool-down and long-term suspension expenses will be
nearly the same. Legal expenses may be more in some autopsy cases.
And, from another point of view, perhaps MORE funding would be needed
for the recovery of a straight-frozen patient. If more damage is in
fact done by the time-delay, clotting, injury, and absence of
cryoprotectant, it may turn out to be more expensive to repair this
person's brain and to give him the intelligence and knowledge to succeed
in that future society.
So (the $50,000 question), why not offer "straight-frozen brain" as
an option for a lower price? There are three issues intertwined here:
ethical business practice, informed consent, and public perception.
There is nothing wrong with an automobile manufacturer offering a
choice of differently priced automobiles. General Motors offers cars
from a Cadillac for $40,000 with more comfort and luxury touches,
greater passenger capacity, and greater safety down to a sub-compact car
for $10,000 that may bounce more, hold fewer people and luggage, and be
more likely to kill passengers in a wreck. Both, however, will get you
where you're going, as long as you don't have a wreck.
However, would it be ethical for a car company to offer for sale a
new car for $4,000 which may or may not come with an engine; and if you
get lucky and get an engine, it may or may not run for a month or a
year? Perhaps in the most extreme use of "ethical" this deal would be
so, as long as you properly informed the customer that this car might
not work, that they might actually get no benefit from it, and they
might not be able to re-sell it. But if you then advertised this car as
the "low-cost option" in automobiles for people who couldn't afford a
real car, would THAT be ethical, no matter how well you informed the
customer?
I would say no.
This analogy breaks down here, since I can't come up with a decent
emergency scenario that would allow a car company to take the $40,000
for the Cadillac and then be forced to give the guy the $4,000 risky
special instead. And today we can't guarantee that even our "Cadillac"
has an engine. But I hope the point is still clear. Even with fully
informed consent (which is often damn difficult to be sure of in
cryonics), is it ethical to offer such a poor option for sale? Alcor
has not thought it was so in the past, so we have not offered it.
Finally, the issue of public perception is extremely important to
cryonics. Our image with physicians, scientists, and the press has
improved significantly in the last decade. This is largely due to the
growing understanding that we try to do our *best* for the patients, not
our least. As much as is economically feasible, we use medical
procedures that seem to be relevant to preservation. We are trying to
improve those procedures all of the time.
To my mind, offering the straight freeze as a standard option,
rather than "it was the best we could do under unexpected
circumstances," would tell the public that we are only interested in
getting people's money at any cost and that we are unconcerned about the
condition or recoverability of our patients. Maybe some day that
suggestion wouldn't matter, if cryonics is just seen as a normal
business. Perhaps there IS a market out there for a company that will
offer a no-guarantees, no frills suspension with the full information
that current research suggests that such an option is less likely to
succeed. But that company is not Alcor and I suspect that time is not
now.
Steve Bridge, Alcor
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4925