X-Message-Number: 9825
Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 13:13:43 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Reanimation Costs

        Steve Bridge (9819) deals with the issue of
reanimation costs by first describing the current state 
of Alcor's Patient Care Trust, and then by stating the
following:

        "I think that this investment growth, plus the
inevitable overfunding that some members will provide
to Patient Care in the event of their suspensions, may
well provide enough earnings in a couple of decades
to fund significant research in reanimation, PLUS end
up with enough funding to handle the costs of repair,
revival, and rehabilitation. Compound interest alone
can greatly swell an account given enough time, and
we are doing much better than that."

        I think this kind of vague optimism about
reanimation costs is not good enough.  The future
holds many unknowns.  Downturns in economic
growth are just one of them.  There may be costly
legal and political challenges to cryonics that will
have to be fought.  There may be natural and
man-made catastrophes that are very costly to
deal with.  And there may be very high costs
required for attempts at reanimation.

        I think the only prudent thing to do is
to start estimating and charging for reanimation,
and to set up specific reanimation funds. The
concept of cryonics includes the possibility of
reanimation.  That's the reason people sign up.
Cryonicists spend considerable time discussing
and arguing about the prospect of reanimation.
Given that, I don't think we should ignore (or only 
offer vague hopes for) the costs of reanimation.

        Bob Ettinger and others (including 
me) have talked about offering lower-cost,
low-tech cryonics options for people who 
cannot afford the best available cryonics 
methods. I think lower-cost options will be 
needed for social, political and ethical
reasons when cryonics has more credibility 
because of improved methods, and the 
demand for it has gone up.

        One problem with lower-cost, 
low-tech methods, however, is that they are 
likely to cause more damage than more 
expensive, higher-tech methods.  Steve Bridge 
raises the following question about such 
methods: "We don't want to offer procedures 
which offer no preservation of memory and 
identity. I can guarantee that we will not offer
*cremation*, for instance. But are there
procedures being used in cryonics today
that are the practical equivalent of 
cremation?  We don't know right now, but
that will be a BIG debate in the future."

        Well, part of this "debate" is likely
to deal with the costs of reanimating these
people.  Although it's impossible to estimate
accurately what the costs of reanimation will
be (at this time), it is reasonable to presume
that the costs will be higher for those preserved
with methods that cause more damage.  How
are these costs going to be paid?

        The issue of whether a particular
patient can be revived may be quite difficult to
determine scientically, even *after* we know a
great deal more about the biological basis for
both memory and identify.  The "optimists" in
cryonics believe it is likely that medical science
in the future will eventually make it possible to
revive many, most (or all) of today's patients. 
But at what cost?  And who will pay for it?

        It may be necessary to make several
attempts at reanimation before a particular patient 
can be successfully revived...or to determine that it
will never be possible to revive that patient.  Again,
who will pay these costs?

        Right now, the cryonics societies have
general patient care funds to which some patients have
contributed little while others have contributed a great
deal more.  As Steve Bridge mentioned in his post, both
Alcor and CI (you can add ACS to the list) have benefitted
greatly from "overfunded" members.

        Well, this kind of socialism has worked so far
and may continue to work for a while, but I don't think it
is likely to be a satisfactory system when people begin
to take the question of reanimation more seriously.
People (and/or their relatives) who think their chances of
reanimation are good are far less likely to be sanguine
about *their* money being used to revive others,
especially if the costs of reviving others are high.
I believe this will become an important issue long 
before any patient has been revived.  

        I think we should start dealing with these
issues more effectively now.  If we don't, I think we'll soon
be *forced* to do so by the availability of better, more costly
cryonics methods that will give the cryonics movement
more credibility and lead to more business, but will also
raise thorny questions about the costs of reanimation,
and the affordability of cryonics.

---Saul Kent

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9825