X-Message-Number: 5862
From: John Sharman <>
Newsgroups: uk.legal,sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: Death (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley)
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 96 21:35:58 GMT
Message-ID: <>

References: <> <>

In article <>
            "John de Rivaz" writes:

> Writing in Cryonet, Robert Ettinger said 
> 
> >>>>
> Some legal Brits have been saying things about what the law is or
> should be with respect to "corpses" and "patients" in cryostasis. 
> 
> In part, this is just their hang-up on language. No one disputes that our
> patients are legally and clinically dead, under present custom; but the
> question is whether and how to change law and custom, if necessary, to take
> future developments into account. Nothing new about this -- but some people
> have personal neuroses on this particular subject.

It is fair comment that lawmakers have shown a strong disinclination to
legislate for the purely speculative. In some Revenue enactments you get
provisions like ".. any attempt to achieve X shall be deemed .." etc.
but in general the government likes to see something before it
legislates on it.

As you correctly state, those whom you call "suspended" the law calls
"dead". If you want a change you are gpoing to have to do much more tham
say "dead .... except for the outside chance that he may not be at some
indeterminate future date."

>
> The statement was made that, prior to successful revival, a corpse is a
> corpse is a corpse. Plainly false. During the first heart transplant
> operation, was the patient "dead" until he sat up again?

Nope. Not legally; not medically. Christian Barnard was a noted surgeon
- not a resurrectionist.

>                                                           In particular, was
> he dead after the old heart was excised and before the new one was sewn in?
> If so, did the surgeons defy law and logic by continuing the operation? 

No. So the second part of the question does not arise.

> One might quibble and say that, in this case, there had been prior success
> with lower animals.

Some "quibble"!  I would accept that a man high-jumping 1.95 m is *some
evidence* that one day a man may jump 2.00 m. I would not draw the same
inference if the world record to date were 3 cm.

Taking full successful revival as 2 m. my scale would run as follows:

        Nematode revived to trained discrimination      -   0.03 m
        Gerbil revived to p.v.s.                        -   0.75 m
        Primate revived to p.v.s.                       -   0.90 m
        Human revived to p.v.s.                         -   1.00 m
        Gerbil revived to full normalcy                 -   1.75 m
        Primate revived to full normalcy                -   1.90 m
        Human revived to full normalcy                  -   2.00 m

Oops! Nearly forgot:

        R. W. Whitaker revived to full normalcy         -   0.01 m

>                      Yes, this made success more likely, but people are
> different, and success was far from guaranteed.

AFAIR Christian Barnard had hit the button a couple of times already
with chimpanzees. That's fairly close. Not so different at all.

I guess I would start thinking about changing laws once we had reached
1.75 m.

>                                                    We are dealing in
> probabilities. Cryonicists are more optimistic in this respect than
> others -- and also more knowledgeable. But in any case, under PRESENT 
> custom, the "law" does not attempt to dictate to a surgeon how to estimate
> probabilities.

Oh yes it does. In combination with professional rules and practices,
anyway. Your brain surgeon who dives in for a bit of squicking had
better have plenty of stats to demonstrate his expectation of the
efficacy of the procedure.

>                 Usually it does not even attempt to dictate to a gambler
> when he must refrain because the house cut is too large; the gambler can 
> take his own chances. And the law (after taking the government cut) does 
> not attempt to tell a testator that he may only bequeath his assets to 
> people or entities or enterprises approved by the bureaucrats. 

Wrong again. There are plenty of attempted testamentary gifts which may
fail for reasons based in public policy. Perpetuities and Accumulations
legislation is a case in point. Gifts to animals is another (very
common) one.

> "Custom" is sometimes rather rigid, often pretty fluid; and the historical
> revisionists are always with us. In the U.S., some people are saying loudly
> that our country has religious underpinnings, and cite the "pledge of
> allegiance" which includes the words: "...one nation, under God, 
> indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." But the "under God" bit is 
> actually relatively NEW; when I was a boy the Pledge did not include those 
> words.

Eee ... you were lucky. When I were a lad we never 'ad a Pledge ........

> The Devil can cite Scripture, and all sides will continue to claim the
> sanctity of Custom, and all sides will disregard Custom when they think 
> that is feasible and in their interest. Rally 'round the flag, boys.

I *really* don't think that dipping stiffies in liquid nitrogen can as
yet be decribed as "Custom."
-- 
Regards,

John Sharman
 +====================================================================+
 |  John Sharman               Internet:    |
 |                             Tel/Fax: +44 (0)1603 452142            |
 +====================================================================+


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5862