X-Message-Number: 7172
From:  (Olaf Henny)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Definitions
Date: 18 Nov 1996 20:50:14 GMT
Message-ID: <56qi66$>
References: <56jdk1$> <>

In article <>,  (Brian Wowk) says:
>

>In <56jdk1$>  (Kenton E. Sinner) 
writes:
>
>(deleted)
>
>>What this means is this:  when someone's vital signs stop, as in
>>cases of hypothermia, the person is dead, but may be revived if
>>proper care is given.
>
>        Problem is that medicine today does NOT call cases such
>as the above "dead".  Medical/legal definitions of death are
>extremely plastic, and chosen as necessary to fit circumstances.
>The belief that death is a discrete event (as opposed to some
>doc just deciding that further care is not warranted) is
>popular folklore divorced from concrete medical reality.
>Cryonicist do themselves (not to mention *truth*) a disservice 
>by continuing to promulgate this mythology.
>
>        In short, promoting cryonics as freezing dead people is
>a fatal mistake.  I've written about this at length over the
>past decade, beginning with the article "The Death of Death in
>Cryonics" in 1988 (available as a reprint from Alcor).  Kevin 
>Brown wrote a summary of this article, which can be found at
>
>        http://www.c2.org/~kqb/archive/50

Sorry Brian, but here you are in a 'catch 22' situation.  If you 
deny, that *death* has occurred, you cannot legally cryopreserve 
any person, thereby denying that person the chance for a vastly 
extended life span.

The sad fact is, that until a re-definition in *law* somewhere 
along the lines of Kenton's proposal has taken place, we are 
stuck with that unpleasant expression: *death*.  You may fiddle 
with Kenton's terminology in detail, but his distinction 
between death/dissolution and death/preservation is sound, 
without regard to which names you attach to the two states.

Olaf Henny


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7172