X-Message-Number: 4926
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:10:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #4921 - #4925

> From: Joseph Strout <>
> 
> Ah!  This simplifies things immensely.  There is no longer any need for
> any of us to strain our brains coming up with new ideas, because if it was
> a good idea, some cryonics company would already be doing it (or at least
> considering it).  According to Mr. Kent, it is impossible (even
> inconceivable) that someone such as Mr. Norton could come up with a good
> idea that is not already under consideration by the infinitely wise
> cryonics organizations.  The first criterion of a Good Idea, apparently,
> is that it was conceived by someone in a position of power within a
> cryonics organization.  If that's not you, then keep your smart ideas to
> yourself. 

If I want to fix my own car, and four separate engineers tell me I'm 
going about it the wrong way, then maybe I should take their advice. 
If I want to cure myself of an illness, and four different 
doctors tell me that I have insufficient knowledge of medicine to make a 
sound decision, then maybe I would be wise to listen to them.

I can't quite understand why Mr. Strout is so angry at the suggestion that
straight freezing might be a poor idea because four different cryonics
organizations refuse to offer it. These groups have reached their
conclusions after twenty years or so of trial and error and careful study,
and you don't need to be an expert to see why. If you look at the most
recent issue of CryoCare Report, you will see electron micrographs that
clearly illustrate the consequences of freezing brain tissue with and
without state-of-the-art cryoprotective perfusion. I don't care how much
faith you have in nanotechnology; it seems clear to me that given a choice
between causing severe damage to one's brain and causing less damage, the
logical course of action is to go for less damage. 

Moreover, I think that offering a straight freeze would be questionable on
ethical grounds. If cryonics were a branch of orthodox medicine, a
straight freeze might even be considered malpractice. I am glad that
straight freezing is not an option anywhere, since this is a powerful
piece of evidence to refute any suggestions that cryonicists are only in
it for the money. Clearly, ethical standards do exist here, and we should
be proud of that fact. 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4926