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