CryoNet #32137 - #32140

CryoNet - Fri 6 Nov 2009

    #32137: Re: combining neuropreservation with organ harvesting [John de Rivaz]
    #32138: Suspended Animation Inc. [Ettinger]
    #32139: Re: Suspended Animation Inc. [benbest]
    #32140: Cryonics and organ transplants [swb1948]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32137%2D32140

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32137
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: combining neuropreservation with organ harvesting
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:03:13 -0000

The idea of combining neuropreservation with organ harvesting has a lot of merit in logic, and has been considered before. I seem to remember that there were considerable technical difficulties. But these become insignificant when the legal and organisational difficulties are considered. The conventional (ie non cryonic) part of civilisation have far too many vested interests involved for this ever to become reality.

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32137

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32138
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:40:58 EST
Subject: Suspended Animation Inc.

Suspended Animation Inc. (SA) for several years has had a 
contract with the Cryonics Institute (CI) allowing CI members 
to choose SA services when death is expected or occurs. 
The CI web site has promoted the use of SA services. 
The original contract was blatantly unfortunate in some respects, 
the blame lying mainly with Ben Best, David Ettinger, and myself. 
A while back the contract was modified, but only now, finally, the 
promotion of SA on the CI web site has ceased. Mention of the 
availability of SA services is there, but without advocacy. There is 
also a segment on pro's and con's of the choice of SA services. 
The changes are those proposed by David Ettinger, the CI 
directors having previously agreed to give him that job. 


So finally the worst of that is over, and I thank Ben for finally 
cooperating. But in my opinion there are still problems. For 
one thing, those CI members who have already signed up for 
SA services may be unaware of the changes and need to be informed.  


Also, the segment on pro's and con's in my opinion is inadequate 
and inaccurate. For example, it says that a member can choose 
between using a funeral director or using SA, and also that SA 
can provide washout etc. Actually, a funeral director, to the best 
of my knowledge, must always be involved, in part to provide or 
authorize transportation of the body. Also, in Michigan and 
presumably other states, only a licensed funeral director may cut 
or inject a dead person. (Obvious exceptions e.g. for medical 
school anatomy classes and pathologists.) Further, there is the 
question of legality of some of the medications SA has used or 
advocated. Further, some of the potential problems with SA are 
understated or ignored. 


Anyway, a big correction but still work to be done. 


Robert Ettinger 



 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32138

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32139
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:20:18 -0500
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Suspended Animation Inc.

I hope that Robert Ettinger is correct that
the worst is over. And by worst, I mean the
acrimony between me, Robert and other CI
Members/Directors over the availability of
SA services to CI Members. I am very proud
that SA services are available to CI Members
(including me) and I am proud to have been
instrumental in making those services available.

I agree that the Pro's and Con's section
is misleading. It is certainly true that
SA does and must work with a funeral director
(and utilizes the facilities of a funeral
director) in providing its services. It is
misleading to say the I am the only CI
Director who has made arrangements for
SA services without also indicating that
most CI Directors have apparently made
no provision for standby whatsoever.

I believe it is false that SA is violating
laws with any of its medications. That may
not always have been true in the past
with Alcor's medications, but I believe
this has been corrected by Alcor. SA
Manager Catherine Baldwin attended the
CI Annual General Meeting in September
and she assured CI Directors that
all SA medications have been carefully
reviewed so as not to contain any
controlled substances or medications
that could not legally cross state lines.

-- Ben Best

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32139

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32140
Subject: Cryonics and organ transplants
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:49:01 -0500
From: [email protected]

----------MB_8CC2CAB3672B409_43E4_10B3_webmail-d038.sysops.aol.com



OK, I don't usually jump in on these discussions, but I can see the enthusiasm building for what might sound like a reasonable idea.

Before you all waste many hours of your lives trying to persuade Alcor to donate the organs of neuropatients, let me dump some ice water reality on you.  As much as I respect Kennita, that suggestion won't work at all, for a number of reasons.  It shows a lack of familiarity with both transplant medicine and with the practicality of real-life cryonics today.  Really, even 15 years ago at Alcor, we discussed these questions with hospital personnel and organ donation specialists.  It is completely unfeasible.


1.  It is extremely difficult to do effective blood washout and perfusion of transport/cryoprotection fluids into a brain with just an open neck available for perfusion.  Developing such techniques would require a great deal of new research and skills.  Big time and big money.

So, we have to do the washout and perfusion with the head still attached to the body to take advantage of an intact circulatory system.

2.  These means that all of the transplantable organs of the body are either a) perfused with our set of chemicals or b) left with blood in the organs, untreated, for a couple of hours.

3.  If a), then the patient's organs would be medically unusable for transplant.  We cannot prove (think 100 million dollars or more) to the FDA and various medical boards that our particular combination of fluids is "safe and effective" for living patients.  No transplant team in the United States would accept such organs.

4.  If b), then the organs could suffer enough ischemic damage that they wouldn't be usable either.


Even if the above problems were solved, here are some of the other difficulties that would have to be overcome.
 
5.  In order for the transplanted organs to be viable, the procedures would have to done to hospital standards -- which today and perhaps for decades means the procedures would have to be done AT a hospital.  
 
6.  This would require immense amounts of education and training of both hospital and cryotransport personnel so that they would be willing to cooperate, in order that both the organs for transplant AND the patient's head/brain were handled to maximum best effect.
 
7.  This would require years of clinical research to determine the best ways to do this surgery to remove organs (NOT a 5 minute job) while protecting the patient's brain --if you could even get approval to attempt such research.
 
8.  And why would anyone spend the uncountable millions of dollars to do all of this to prepare for a cryonics case which MIGHT occur ONCE every 10-20 years in any particular hospital?  

Where would anyone benefit from this?

Any hospital or organ donation organization could spend $10,000 in publicity and probably persuade several more local families each year to donate the organs of accident victims.  That would be many more organs than they could gain from cryonics organizations over many years, and for a lot less trouble.

If you all have $100 million to donate to improving cryonics, we can all come up with at least 50 uses of it more important than this.

Steve Bridge
former Alcor President


----------MB_8CC2CAB3672B409_43E4_10B3_webmail-d038.sysops.aol.com

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32140

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************