X-Message-Number: 9844
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 15:30:23 -0400
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Reanimation: Problems And Costs
I've raised the issue (9833) of possibly
needing more than one attempt to reanimate
patients frozen with today's technology.
Bob Ettinger raises concern that my
suggestion might "...alarm some readers with
visions of botched experiments and maybe
even pain or insanity combined with total
helplessness."
I don't think readers need be concerned
about pain and suffering from attempts at revival.
I'm confident that future medical scientists will be
able to make such attempts without any suffering
by patients.
Both Ettinger and Thomas Donaldson
(9835) question whether more than one attempt at
reanimation will ever be necessary. Ettinger says:
"I don't believe that more than one attempt
will ever be needed. No attempts will be made with
humans until (a) there has been full success with
other animals, and (b) there has been full access via
computer simulations, and (c) it will be possible to
monitor consciousness/feeling and other brain
functions on a moment-by-moment basis, and
abort or 'freeze' the process on a moment's notice.
There will not only be much advanced imaging
methods of more or less traditional kinds, but also
nanobot implants at strategic locations sending
continuous updates..."
Donaldson says: "Your case of 'what if
there must be several tries' should not occur unless
the cryonics society is being really stupid. First we
work out the condition of the proposed revivee. Then,
using animal experiments, we test our methods
repeatedly to assure ourselves that they will work (as
you know, we will probably be able to make animals
with physiologies virtually identical to our own, by
suitable genetic transfer and engineering....No matter
how someone was preserved, we need not bring them
back in a hurry, we can test and test so that in the end
we don't simply bring them back, but bring them back
in the best possible condition, with some money left
over, too."
I wasn't clear enough about what I mean
by "attempts" at reanimation. I'm assuming that in
cases where there has been severe brain damage
from ischemia and freezing (and, perhaps, disease
and aging), such as in today's cryonics patients, the
issue of whether these patients can be restored to
life as themselves (with their identities intact) may
be problematic. I'm also assuming that every
patient will have individual differences in terms
of damage to the brain (and other areas of the
body) and well as genetic makeup, biochemistry
and physiology that will require individual attention
when attempting to reanimate that patient. I'm
further assuming that, in the process of attempting
to reanimate a particular patient, the scientists may
reach a point where some portion (but not all) of the
individual's identity may be recoverable (with the
technology available at the time), and that *someone*
(either the patient him [or her] self, the patient's
advocate, the patient's doctor, a government agency
or the courts) will have to decide whether that degree
of recovery is acceptable, or whether the patient should
be placed into suspended animation until future
advances are available, which could make it possible
to restore *more* of the patient's identity.
Ettinger suggests that such a decision-
making process may become possible when he says
that: "...it will be possible to monitor consciousness/
feeling and other brain functions on a moment-to-
moment basis, and abort or 'freeze' the process on a
moment's notice."
Donaldson suggests the same when he says:
"No matter how someone was preserved, we need not
bring them back in a hurry, we can test and test so that
in the end, we don't simply bring them back, but bring
them back in the best possible condition, with some
money left over, too."
Well, it's the "money left over, too" that
concerns me. I think it's quite possible that it will be
very costly to reanimate patients frozen under poor
conditions. I'm concerned that the cryonics societies
won't have enough money to cover these costs for
*all* their patients, and that the inequities in the
amount of money left to cryonics societies by
individual members may cause conflicts in the
futrue regarding the allocation of these resources.
Bob Ettinger argues in favor of pooled
funds as follows: "If you depend solely on your
individual trust funds for reanimation (or/and for
suspension, then you are at the mercy of the
judgment of your trustees, and of happenstance
as it might affect your personal trust. If you are
one nickel short, then you are down the tubes
(in theory, at least; in practice, someone might
lend a hand).
"If your funds are pooled with those of
others at Cryonics Institute, then your common
fortunes depend on the overall stability and growth
of the organization, and the judgement and
motivation of the directiors. This seems like
a better bet to me."
I agree that, if you have an individual
account, you are at the "mercy" of your trustees,
but you are also at the mercy of the directors of
your cryonics organization. At least with an
individual trust, you can *choose* the people who
you will be at the mercy of, as well as the method
by which they will be replaced when necessary.
At CryoCare we came up with the
concept of the Patient Advocate (PA) as a player
(along with CryoCare and the Independent Patient
Care Foundation [IPCF]) in determining a member's
fate after they've been cryopreserved. The PA doesn't
have to be an individual, it could be a committee,
an organization or a company. The purpose of the
PA is to designate some *one* or some *entity*
whose sole purpose is your interests. For example,
I intend to set up an organization, which I may call
"The Committee For The Reanimation Of Saul Kent"
to be my Patient Advocate. That committee would be
funded and the members of the committee paid for
their services (on a year-to-year basis), and
rewarded handsomely *after* I have been
reanimated successfully.
The virtue of a Patient Advocate is that
(he, she or it) is set up to serve you and you alone.
When cryonics becomes more popular, cryonics
organizations will grow larger. Someday, you may
be cared for by an organization that is caring for
thousands (or even millions) of others.
A large organization (caring for a great
many people) might not be as attentive to your
individual needs as you'd like them to be. That's
where having a Patient Advocate could be helpful,
if you've set it up well, and chosen the person or
people to head it wisely.
Having an individual account *does* run
the risk of the money you put into it not remaining
adequate to keep you preserved or not being enough
to reanimate you. At CryoCare, we've tried to guard
against that by having relatively high minimum levels
of funding, by encouraging members to provide more
than the minimum, by having *all* the patient care
funds managed by investment professionals
(separate from CryoCare management), and by
providing for a General Care Fund funded by
volunteer contributions, which could be used
(in emergencies) to help out patients who may
not have enough money in their account to cover
all the necessary costs. (Such a fund has not
yet been set up.)
If you give all your assets to your cryonics
organization, you'll probably do fine if you've chosen
your organization wisely, but might not do as well if
you've made a poor choice. I believe the cryonics
movement will grow substantially in the coming
years, in concert with research advances, and that,
as cryonics gains in credibility, there will be new
organizations/companies arising to meet the
growing demand for services. I further believe
that, in 10 or 15 years, there may be several
cryonics companies far stronger than any of
today's organizations. One or more of these
could be today's organizations grown bigger
and stronger, or there could be existing
companies in other fields, or entirely new
companies, who decide to get into the
cryonics business.
In any case, I foresee quite a bit
of change coming in the next couple of decades,
and I think your best bet (if you can afford to do so)
is to make your cryonics arrangements in a manner
that enables those responsible for you (after you
are preserved) to have the best possible options
(legally and financially) in adapting to changing
conditions.
Steve Bridge (9840) responded to my
suggestion that cryonics societies start estimating
and charging for reanimation, as follows:
"But how in the world could this be done?
As Thomas pointed out in his message, it is difficult
to even BEGIN to estimate these kinds of costs,
except to say that the first reanimation will be the
most expensive."
I agree that it will be "difficult" to estimate
the costs of reanimation (*very* difficult), but I think we
owe to ourselves and our members to begin to make
attempts to do so. A fair amount of discussion has
taken place on Cryonet regarding estimations of the
odds of revival for patients frozen with today's methods.
A few people have pointed out the difficulty of arriving
at a valid estimation of the probability of revival given
the large number of unknowns and variables involved.
Almost everyone who has participated in
the discussions on the probability of revival has
assumed that there is *some* chance of revival for
those frozen today, at least for some of them. Well, I
assume that there will be some costs *associated*
with revival, and I think the cryonics societies should
begin to start estimating these costs.
It may be that the minimums charged by
today's cryonics organizations will be adequate to
cover the costs of reanimation, or it may be that by
pooling their patient care funds, those who provide
more assets will cover the costs of those who
provide too little for reanimation. Or, it may turn
out that the pooled funds of some organizations
proves to be *inadequate* to cover the costs of all
the patients under their care.
I believe that one way of improving the
accuracy of estimates of required funding for cryonics
is to begin to estimate the costs of reanimation. As
I've said before, I believe that the advent of improved
cryonics methods will lead to the necessity *and*
the ability to better estimate the costs of reanimation.
I just think it's desirable for us to start this process
sooner rather than later.
---Saul Kent
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9844