X-Message-Number: 27216
From: 
Subject: Standards of Practice
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:12:47 +0000

--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_26668_1129327967_0


      I apologize to Ben Best if my list of apparent disagreements about 
      technical standards was not reflective of current CI practice.  I have the
      greatest respect for Ben and his tireless efforts to master scientific 
      aspects of cryonics, and improve practices at CI.  The procedures and 
      documentation of CI's first (brain) vitrification case

http://www.cryonics.org/reports/CI69.html


were certainly a big leap forward.  I should have acknowledged that, and not 
mentioned perfusion endpoints as a point of disagreement (anymore). 

      With respect to field procedures, Ben wrote:


> Standby and Transport is not part of the CI cost structure, but that does not 
mean that it is not a concern.


Many other issues (e.g. ischemia mitigation and sterile technique, neither of 
which mortuaries can provide on their own) are rolled into the standby and 
transport issue.  Ben has aggressively improved optional field support services.
I know standby and transport are important to Ben.  What I am less clear on is
to what extent CI officially advocates standby and transport as a standard of 
care in cryonics.  For instance, the home page of the CI website says $28,000 is
all that is really needed for cryonics.


"Does that lower fee ($28,000) mean lower quality patient care or services?  
No."


The general theme of the website seems to be that anything beyond the most basic
procedures are "frills."  If members and prospective members are being told 
otherwise, I stand corrected, and hope time can be found amidst technical 
development work to eventually update the website.  Your own pages are 
remarkable, Ben, but they are not CI's.  

----Brian Wowk
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_26668_1129327967_0

 Content-Type: text/html

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27216