X-Message-Number: 9633
From: "Halperin, Jim" <>
Subject: RE: CryoNet #9624 (Joe Strout's comments about my proposal)
Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 09:16:41 -0500 

	In response to my proposal posted on May 4 (#9618), Joe Strout
wrote: To suggest that a brain received under these conditions may
someday be
> revived is a *much* greater stretch than the usual cryonics claim.
> Neurons
> cannot switch to anaerobic metabolism like some other tissues can;
> they die
> rather quickly under ischemia and start to break down shortly after
> that.
> I'm not an expert in this field, but I do know that in microscopy, we
> purfuse and fix the brain immediately if we're going to image it; if a
> rat
> is allowed to lie dead but unfixed more than a few minutes, the
> ultrastructure is degraded.  Mike and Saul can comment on this more
> knowledgably than me.  But my point is that, if the cryobiology
> community
> did not think us looney before, they will surely think so now.
> 
	Answer: Apparently I could have done a better job explaining my
offer. I never meant to suggest that we indiscriminately harvest brains
from every organ donor that dies having signed up, or even that we
harvest any brains at all -- unless and until current organ donation
procedures change drastically. The program would start out as one that
collects tissue samples only, then expand to brains-only if ever there's
value in doing so.
	I believe this was stated accurately in my original posting, but
perhaps not as clearly as it should have been.


	Joe wrote: Once an organ donor does become interested in
cryonics, he will be
> advised to tear up his organ donation card.  (As it was with me: I
> used to
> be an organ donor, years ago, but threw it out when I found it was
> incompatible with cryonics.)  This is likely to invoke a negative
> reaction
> in many; they will feel they have been mislead from the very
> beginning.
> 
> 
Answer: I agree with the first sentence, but I don't understand the
last. Overall, by offering free tissue cryopreservation, wouldn't this
program almost certainly create more new organ donors than it loses?
Very few who sign up initially will care about their brains and fewer
still will become interested in cryonics per se. And those few who do
care, and who can afford to have their brains cryopreserved, clearly
should not remain organ donors unless and until organ donation
procedures change to accommodate brain preservation.  


	Joe wrote: In Ohio and California at least, there are no papers
involved; your
> driver's license comes with an organ donation card, which you simply
> sign
> and stick on the back of the license.  Most people I know do it; it is
> rather expected, at least among my peers.  So I'm not sure that any
> additional incentive or rewards are needed; those who choose not to do
> it
> -- because they're squeamish or signing up for cryonics -- are not
> going to
> change their minds for the prospect of getting their brains removed
> and
> saved in a jar as well (that's how they'll imagine it, anyway).
> 
Answer: As an aside, this is the case in Texas, too. The problem is that
the form is one where default means no donation. (i.e. [ ] Check here if
you would like to become an organ donor.) About ten years ago, long
before I knew about cryonics, I was an organ-donation activist. I even
initiated a brief and unsuccessful letter-writing campaign to get the
form changed to a proactive decision mode (i.e. I [ ] do  [ ] do not
wish to be an organ donor.) 
But I agree that tissue and brain preservation won't change most
people's decisions. Still, if it causes *any* additional donors to sign
up, it could save lives.

	Joe wrote: Secondly, I think the organ shortage you speak of is
largely not due to a
> lack of donors, but due to storage and transport problems.  Currently,
> an
> organ transplant can only take place when a donor dies suddenly, is
> found
> quickly, and is very close physically to a well-matched recipient.
> Effective means of cryopreserving organs would go a long way to reduce
> or
> eliminate the perceived shortage, because they could be banked and
> transported to wherever and whenever they are needed.
> 
Answer: I agree with you that storage and transport is a large part of
the problem (obviously, signing up more donors would help, too), but
cryopreservation of organs is a problem that has been attacked with a
great deal of money and effort in the past. I am more interested in
looking at such problems from new angles, rather than simply throwing
more money at previously tried methods.


	Joe wrote: So I think your proposal, in its current form, is
likely to do more harm
> than good, and is based on some misconceptions anyway 
> 
Answer: Do you feel that way about the tissue sample part, or just the
brain part? If the latter, how do you feel about it now that you
understand that brains would be included if and only if the organ
donation procedures were changed to accommodate brain preservation, and
only in those cases where the brain was deemed potentially salvageable
by some reasonable standard? 


	Joe wrote:  Let me propose two alternative uses of your
half-million
> dollars:
> 
Answer: Those are both intriguing ideas. I'll consider them, along with
many others. And I am a long way from giving up on this one!
Best regards, Jim Halperin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9633