X-Message-Number: 5807
From: Owen Lewis <>
Newsgroups: uk.legal,sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: Virtue of suffering
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 10:57:13 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <>

In article <>  "Brian Wowk" writes:

>In <> Owen Lewis <> writes:
>
>>Would someone care to post how it is proposed to revive a deep-frozen corpse
>>complete and with its personality and memory intact?
>
>>If I mistake that as the actual intention, could someone please post in 
>>what condition it is prognosticated that a thawed out person will be?
>
>        The intention is indeed to revive deep-frozen *patients* with
>their personality and memory intact.  Calling a cryonics patient a
>"corpse" is an abuse of language.  ......

Thanks for the detailed and interesting post, Brian. However - and without 
yet reading the reference sources you kindly provided - it does seem, prima
facie, that there are a number of difficulties in the way of what you 
propose, namely:

	1. It would seem that a person must enter 'cryonic suspension' before
death by any other cause has occurred. In the absence of any instance of 
actual revival, the law must continue to view 'cryonic suspension' of humans 
as assisted suicide since by current practice anybody frozen stiff is 
certifiably dead and a corpse. 

	2.  This first issue would also seem to be central to allowing the 
suspended entity to retain sufficient assets to survive, when revived at some 
future date, unskilled, probably unemployable and possibly with personality
temporarily or even permanently destroyed.  

	3.  As current 'cryonic suspension' is carried out in the absence of 
any proven path for its reversal, how is it to be assured that the current 
techniques does not in itself cause massive and irreversible damage. 

It does seem to me that to overcome these real and present obstacles in the 
path of cryonic suspension it required the research to advance to the point 
where where both physical resuscitation and subsequent mental condition can
be reliably demonstrated under laboratory conditions with mammal subjects.
Such licenced research must surely be the only way that the law can come to
change its view of 'cryonic suspension' as the creation and preservation 
of a corpse?

There is a fourth concern which it seems to me to be unlikely to be addressed 
until cryonics research has demonstrated the requirement to come to grips with 
its reality. That is the question of whether, if proved viable, it would
not be prohibited other than under special licence and for specified purposes.
A purpose for which it might well be beneficial is the colonisation of other 
parts of the galaxy by the human race (though other parts of the galaxy might
not find such a colonisation to be beneficial :-)).   

In sum, I accept the possibility that the resuscitation of a frozen human may 
one day be possible. I cannot see why the law should change to encompass
this possibility unto its reality is proven. Were its practicality proven and 
the ethical, social, economic and legal issues raised thereby come to be 
addressed, one 
possible - and in my view likely - outcome would be that cryonic suspension 
other than by special licence and for special purpose. 


Owe


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5807