X-Message-Number: 5854
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 16:04:34
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Cryonics and assisted suicide
To CryoNet and SCI.CRYONICS
>From Steve Bridge, Alcor
February 28, 1996
In reply to: Message #5846
Newsgroups: uk.legal,sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension
From: (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Death (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 22:57:24 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
<>
It appears that Brad and I have been either talking to very different
groups of people or talking about cryonics very differently. I originally
stated that:
>the public is mostly confused that we are
>freezing "dead people." They object that we cannot bring "dead people"
>back to life.
Brad replied with:
>Interesting. Now I will admit I usually talk about cryonics with the
>moderately educated, and the moderately educated know that the freezing
>is generally far more damaging than whatever stopped the heart of
>the patient. As such, I have never had somebody bring up this concern,
>but I know that Steve Bridge has talked to more people than I have, so
>I will bow to that experience.
The idea that no one brings up this objection with Brad is so foreign
to my experience that I have a hard time making the mental adjustment to
Brad's point of view. There is a great PhD thesis (well, maybe a
Master's) in sociology here for a person who will follow both Brad and I
around for a few weeks.
As cryonicists, we still have not completely understood the reasons
why people don't sign up for cryonics; but at least many of us have
explored that issue and have written articles on it. However, the newer
issue of "are people more likely to approve of cryonic suspension *before*
legal death?" has not been much examined. I have been making assumptions,
I suppose, based on what people tell me. But, in fact, I don't ask most
people a direct question dealing with this issue; and I don't know what
the percentages of responses might be if I did. That is a valid concern
and I will try to ask the question more often.
Still I think my perception is useful, and I do get many people
making the objection "How can you revive dead people?" Some of them on
their own state that it would be better to do this before people
experience the deterioration of the last few days of the dying process.
>More commonly, when people learn that
>the patient's head is cut off, they become very aware that reversing
>suspension is far more difficult than fixing whatever stopped the
>heart. I would challenge that *anybody*, after reading a description
>of neurosuspension would state that the fact that the suspension was
>after, rather than before clinical death, is the main obstacle.
I see fewer objections to neurosuspension than I used to. In fact,
the way I introduce cryonics these days, I sometimes have people *on their
own* suggest "then why not freeze just the brain" before I have even
gotten to neurosuspension. This may be because in all of my beginning
discussion, I discuss brain damage, the fact that we focus on preserving
brain structure because that is where memory and identity are, and pretty
much downplay the rest of the body. I tell my listeners that one can get
a heart transplant and still be the same person, but that a brain
transplant is impossible. A brain gets a body transplant.
(For more, please review my article "Neurosuspension: Head First into
the Future" in the 3rd Quarter, 1995 issue of *Cryonics*, and uploaded to
CryoNet archives as well.)
>> More of the public will see cryonics as a *reasonable* course of
>>action if we could only freeze people "just before" they "die." Again,
>This requires just the right level of ignorance. Once you know enough
>about planned revival technology, you know that repairing what killed you
>is trivial. Now if there is long ischemia, it is uncertain how hard
>that damage is to repair. But that doesn't apply to the cases in
>question, because anybody terminally ill enough for pre-mortem suspension
>is likely to have suspension begin the moment the heart stops anyway.
Actually, it DOES apply. People who are slowly dying go through a
significant period of partial or even severe ischemia during the last 24-
48 hours of their life. This may cause a lot of identity-critical
cerebral damage, which we could prevent with pre-mortem suspension.
having a cryonics team at the bedside when the heart stops prevents the
*post-mortem* ischemic damage, but the damage prior to cardiac arrest may
be just as bad.
In addition, if we could begin suspension procedures prior to cardiac
arrest, we would be more likely in some cases to avoid the frequent sudden
death scramble with several hours of post-mortem ischemia. Often a
patient is terminal and hospitalized but not expected to die for a few
weeks, then they get a clot or pneumonia and down the spiral they go.
Predicting when the last 24 hours of a person's life begins is extremely
difficult. Predicting the last 1-3 weeks is often easier.
>You can indeed assume ignorance on the part of the public, but not a
>precise level of it.
>
>So you are basing your statement on the public having just enough
>knowledge (i.e. having seen some Mel Gibson movies) to think that it
might >work, but not enough understand the real principles planned.
Sorry, Brad, I don't understand your point in this section. Sure, I
assume ignorance on the part of the public; but I cover exactly those
areas when I give talks or tours. They are much less ignorant when I am
finished. Now, if you mean that the public I *don't* talk to is ignorant
of these issues, I quite agree. If we do come to the point where we can
legally perform pre-mortem suspensions (whether using Assisted Suicide
legislation or not), we will have to do a LOT of education. This will be
focused at the membership first, then at the local government and courts,
then at the general public. But that is part of the job.
>The problem is not cryonics. The problem is anything that wants to:
>
>a) Offer a supposedly scientific hope of new life to the dying
>b) Charge them a *lot* of money for that hope.
>c) Kill them early, where they might well otherwise want to hang on,
> in order to realize that hope.
1. It's amazing how many people understand that we are NOT charging a lot
of money. In fact, with whole life insurance, after 10-15 years the cash
values in the policy are often enough to pay the ongoing premiums, with no
further payments by the insured. It is possible that the individual will
only pay $30,000 or so for the benefit of a $120,000 policy. Again, for
the general public, this understanding requires education by us.
2. Persuading people that the phrase "Kill them early" does not really
apply to cryonics is another part of the education process. Most
Americans, at least, understand that dealing with laws is a type of
*game.* We follow the letter of the law where it is beneficial and the
spirit of the law when that is better. We play this law against that and
do whatever we think will protect us. Most people, after I have carefully
explained our procedures and philosophy, understand that it is perfectly
legitimate to use a law which supposedly about "suicide" in order to save
someone's life. They see that such a use is *ironic*, but legitimate.
>> One surprising public effect of the media blitz at that time was
>>the outpouring of empathy for Thomas's situation. For the first time
>>many
>I am not surprised at all. About half the public is for assisted
>suicide. 60% are for abortion, but do you think that issue is settled?
>If there were no sympathy, then you could really worry. The problem
>is that the people opposed to this are *really* opposed, much like
>anti-abortionists. The people for it are just for it.
Attitudes are hard to predict until more talking is done. However, I
have met several people who are deeply against abortion but who see the
value of cryonics, because it is saving lives. They sometimes see
cryonics as a possible future *solution* to abortion.
I think it is at least possible that people who are against laws
favoring assisted suicide will be *in favor* of those laws being used for
cryonics. The *purpose* of cryonics is to prevent death, even if we are
required to use the *form* of a law passed for a different purpose
entirely.
>You don't need just a legal authority, you need a political one. You
>need to test the waters a lot of ways first, and you need to do polls,
Brad, if we had waited for the majority of the public to be in favor
of cryonic suspension before we performed one, there would still be no
patients in suspension today.
>and you probably need to do the first one free, or certainly defer
>payment until after the patient would have terminated without assistance.
>(To stave off any criticism that you want to do it pre-mortem to get
the money sooner. With escrow you can do this fairly safely, at a cost
in interest.)
If the patient were being frozen months before his predicted demise,
that might be a factor. Most patients will only be frozen a few days
before that time. It already takes at least 30 days to obtain a patient's
life insurance or other funding, except in the rare occasion of pre-
payment.
And we can't make all of our decisions in order to "stave off
criticism." Criticism is a fact of life, and I have to deal with it
already. You answer the questions, stand firm on what is right, and go
on.
>I know of no situation where those assisting in the suicide are charging
>$50,000, or where those encouraging the suicide are heirs or
>beneficiaries of life assurance policies.
>
<snip>
>
>if the beneficiaries, who clearly "want" (from a financial standpoint) to
have you kick sooner ever expressed that desire in real ways, and started
lobbying for assisted suicide etc., you can bet they would face trouble.
Yes, there could be a "slippery slope" here; but it is unlikely that
Alcor or other cryonics organization will "lobby" the patient or the
patient's family for involuntary euthanasia or even try very strong
persuasion in favor of "assisted suicide." This will always be an
individual decision, made in advance. We might have to set up a special
"cryonics ethics" board to consider each case so that the patient's
interest is protected. That's OK. I still think that pre-mortem
suspension (even if we call it "cryonics suicide") is a reasonable
approach for those who choose it themselves and who are clearly terminal
and deteriorating. *I* want that option for myself if I should be in a
bad way someday.
Finally, another reminder: education changes people's perspectives.
We need to do a lot more of it. People got hysterical over the idea of
blood transfusions in the early part of the century. A few groups and
individuals are still misinformed or opposed for religious reasons. But
*you* can go to the hospital for a transfusion if you need one.
Stephen Bridge, President ()
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Phone (602) 922-9013 (800) 367-2228 FAX (602) 922-9027
for general requests
http://www.webcom.com/~alcor
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5854