CryoNet #33352 - #33357

CryoNet - Sat 26 Feb 2011

    #33352: CryoNet #33350 - #33351 [M2darwin]
    #33353: Cryonics and Assisted Suicide [Melody Maxim]
    #33354: Re: CryoNet #33350 - #33351 [Gerald Monroe]
    #33355: New book by "Iceman" (open letter to the cryonics community) [Kennita Watson]
    #33356: I second Kennita's "open letter to the cryonics community" [MARK PLUS]
    #33357: conformity eases fear of death [un person]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33352%2D33357

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
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


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

Message #33352
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:41:29 EST
Subject: CryoNet #33350 - #33351

FD writes: 
 
There would appear to be nothing illegal or improper for a  cryopreservation
team to pick up immediately on someone who is pronounced  dead from an
assisted suicide.  It might though become a  hysteria-trigger for the press
and the anti-cryonics promoters, who would,  first, get it wrong and call it
"euthanasia" and, second, shout aloud as to  moral and ethical 
improprieties,
including false claims that the cryonicist  was a victim of those greedy
organizations who killed him for his life  insurance money, and on and on.
Maybe the cryo organizations should draw  their line in the sand, and say
enough is enough, they are no longer going to  be intimidated by the 
rantings
and ravings of irresponsible online  journalists and anti-cryonic
propagandists, and are instead just going to do  the right thing and let the
fallout go where it will?  The detractors  are always going to find 
something
adverse to say, no matter what you do or  don't do.


Cheers,

FD



Aw now FD, you've gone and stolen some of my thunder ;-). I'm working  on 
several position pieces that deal with just this issue (and related  ones).
 
If you (and other readers of CryoNet) go to: 
_http://chronopause.com/index.php/2011/02/23/does-personal-identity-survive-cryopreservation/_ 
(http://chronopause.com/index.php/2011/02/23/does-personal-identity-survive-cryopreserva
tion/)  you  will find a fairly complete discussion of the issue of whether 
or not personal  identity survives cryopreservation, based on our current 
understanding of the  neurobiology of long term memory. The utility of this 
article to any given  individual will depend a great deal on something that I 
do not treat at length  in the article, and that is precisely what personal 
identity is. I can still  recall my complete shock when, many years ago, 
Bill Falloon casually mentioned  that he could care less if his memory 
survived cryopreservation. I've  subsequently discovered that a number of 
cryonicists do not count declarative  (biographical) memory as essential to their 
identities. One cryonicist I know  believes identity is rooted in continuity of 
consciousness, and still others  believe that it resides in a metaphysical 
and indestructible spirit or soul. So,  it all depends on who or what you 
think you are. I've no desire to criticize or  convince on that issue - it's a 
personal choice.
 
However, if you do count memory important, and you do not believe your  
identity resides in a non-physical entity, then the issue of ischemia will be 
of  considerable importance to you. And yes, going somewhere where this issue 
can be  discreetly and definitively dealt with is currently the best 
possible solution.  I'm a great booster of research, and I do think things can be 
done to improve  the outlook in some situations where arrest occurs 
suddenly, and quick  intervention is possible. But the fundamental problem of delay, 
and of other  complicating medico-legal situations will remain paramount. 
The only way to  effectively deal with these issues is at a community level. 
Individuals simply  cannot do this on their own - although occasionally some 
will. It takes the  infrastructure of a group of committed people. 
 
You can see this with very basic and simple issues, such as "man down  
alarms." Utterly pedestrian, and now (given the pace of tech advance in  
electronics) almost "ancient" technology, allows for very reliable detection of  
immobility/cardiac arrest in the home setting - without wiring up  the person, 
or doing anything more than turning the system on and off when  entering or 
leaving the home - something that can be done with a microchip -  either 
implanted und the skin or worn in a bracelet or neck tag, if you ca be  
bothered to flip a switch. I've SEEN these systems in use in Central America to  
"check in/out" dairy cattle when they go out to graze or come in to eat; in 
fact  each feeding station has a chip  reader and a scale and it records how 
much  feed the animal ate (the food bin has a load cell). So the technology 
for this  part of the application is literally off the shelf - regardless of 
 whether you are a cow, or a cryonicist. And yet, no one will implement it 
-  or if they do, it will remain an isolated and largely futile effort... 
That's  because these kinds of changes require the presence of a real physical 
 community, as do the capability to make use of them, in terms of response.
 
Finally, if this is done, it is nobody's business but ours. NOBODY'S. And  
it certainly isn't the media's. But that's another discussion for another 
time  and another place. And jetting off to Portland or Geneva will NOT solve 
the  problem. People don't die that way anymore.
 
Mike Darwin
 



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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33352

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

Message #33353
From: "Melody Maxim" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Cryonics and Assisted Suicide
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:05:59 -0500

FD writes: "Maybe the cryo organizations should draw their line in the sand,
and say enough is enough, they are no longer going to be intimidated by the 
rantings
and ravings of irresponsible online journalists and anti-cryonic
propagandists, and are instead just going to do the right thing and let the
fallout go where it will?  The detractors are always going to find something
adverse to say, no matter what you do or don't do."

Does "do(ing) the right thing" include referring to dialysis techs, service
station attendants, store clerks, golf pros, or other unqualified persons,
as "surgeons" and "perfusionists" in case reports published on websites 
intended to market
cryonics services? Since when did "do(ing) the right thing" ever matter, to
most of the leaders of cryonics activities? Cryonics organizations cannot
continue to carry out their procedures with such a large degree of unethical 
and unprofessional,
behavior, without expecting people to object to their activities.

Maybe FD should aim his accusations of "irresponsibility" at the people
whose actions have left the organizations open to harsh, (and well-deserved,
in my opinion), criticism. For example, was SA's Catherine Baldwin "do(ing)
the right thing" when she published a case report in which she referred to
herself as a surgeon, and used a lot of medical jargon she clearly did not
understand, (judging by her misuse of terminology). Was Mike Darwin "do(ing)
the right thing, when he publicly lied about having been a board-eligible
perfusionist? It's actions such as these, which make all of cryonics look
like nothing more than a scam, and not even a very good one, at that.

I can assure everyone that if a bunch of laymen show up to collect tens of
thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars, for performing what I feel
they grossly misrepresent as futuristic medical procedures, at an assisted
suicide, I will not be the only person shouting "STRINGENT REGULATION" to 
the
rooftops. Personally, I think that, given their past and recent behaviors, 
the current cryonics organizations should be banned from setting foot in any 
medical facility. If Alcor and/or SA want to REALLY "do the right thing" and
publicly acknowledge the lack of qualifications of most, (if not all), of
their staff members, in performing the procedures they are selling, I might
feel differently. Given the manner in which cryonics activities have been 
conducted, it's a wonder cryonics wasn't banned a long time ago.

MM 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33353

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

Message #33354
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:27:08 -0600
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33350 - #33351

--bcaec53f8d75e9435a049d1ea4bf

Quick clarification : I was referring to the "assisted suicide" portion of
the Death with Dignity Act.  Whoever the patient is would have to push the
plunger or the red button or take the pills themselves.  This part would
have to be video recorded, unfortunately, and  the patient would state
clearly that they understand that there is not a guarantee of revival and
that regardless of the outcome of the cryonics, they do not wish to live the
last 6 months of their life in excruciating pain while their mind slips
away.  Or something to the effect, I'm not a lawyer.

The advantages for the preservation could be substantial.  It's not just
post-death when the brain suffers ischemia and damage...many terminal
patients lose blood flow to the brain or the tumors spread there and suffer
permanent pre-death brain damage.  And this damage happens over a period of
weeks, such that the affect cells have a chance to commit apoptosis and be
completely cleaned up by the macrophages.  This kind of brain damage *would
be impossible to repair with nanotechnology.  The memories stored in these
cells would be destroyed as if they had been incinerated*.

Perhaps we could convince the public that a cryo-preservation is death with
dignity?  The patient goes to sleep knowing there's a chance this isn't the
end, and doesn't have to suffer through the last terminal stage of their
illness.  Their body doesn't rot into stinking mush afterwards (at least
their brain doesn't) but is cleanly stored away.

One last comment : there's another 'loophole' in the laws that was used in
at least one cryonics case.  If you're completely dependent on artificial
life support, you can order the machine *turned off*.  It does *not *count
as a suicide or euthansia, but "*refusal of treatment/allowing nature to
take it's course*".  Medical ethics sees a huge difference between an action
and an (in)action, even when the results of said action or inaction are the
same.  A patient was on a ventilator and asked it to be turned off.  He was
declared dead within a few minutes and the CI team was able to rush in to
preserve him.  Mike Darwin thought the results in this case were much better
than normal because there weren't blood clots visible in the capillaries of
his brain that block perfusion of the cryo-protectant.  The blood gas
numbers also looked a lot better.

But even this man suffered tens of minutes of ischemia because he didn't
have the vascular connections to the heart-lung machine already established,
and the team had to wait more than 5 minutes after the patient stopped
breathing for legal death to be declared.  A large dose of drugs self
administered lawfully as part of "death with dignity" would stop the heart
immediately, allowing a doctor to declare legal death more quickly and at a
time when the cryonics team is fully prepared to act.

--bcaec53f8d75e9435a049d1ea4bf

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33354

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

Message #33355
From: Kennita Watson <[email protected]>
Subject: New book by "Iceman" (open letter to the cryonics community)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:48:05 -0800

Sad as it is,  this guy may be the closest thing to positive press that we get.  

http://www.timescall.com/entertainment/entertainment-story.asp?ID=25514

If we who supposedly want to see future centuries don't get off our collective duff and start doing visible research, making incremental progress, trumpeting our successes, etc., we may see our dreams fade out without even so much as the proverbial whimper.

Some questions that need answering:

How many books have been written about cryonics that aren't hatchet jobs?  How many in the last 10 years?  Want to write one (I'll copy-edit)?

How many millionaires' schedules have we gotten on to make a pitch?  Recently?

What advances in technologies relevant to preservation/storage/reanimation have been made in the past 10 years, and who all has been told about them?

How can we make cryonics cool (no pun intended)?

What animal experiments have been done in the last 10 years (either to generate new results or to confirm old results)?

After 15 years, my patience is wearing thin; what I used to accept as cautious is now looking cowardly, and the superlative of conservative is hidebound.  It's hard for me to display the optimism needed to support cryonics to non-members with no recent advances to point to, much less the exponentially-increasing advances needed to save my life.  

There are about 200 people cryonically preserved.  Do you remember when we thought it would be 2000, 20,000, or more by now?

Spread this around -- we need to ruffle dome feathers!

Live long and prosper,
Kennita

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33355

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

Message #33356
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:49:44 -0700
Subject: I second Kennita's "open letter to the cryonics community"
From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>

The cryonics movement shows signs of going into decline. Alcor's
membership has stayed in the 900's for several years now, for example.

I also see the need for a new book to explain and advocate cryonics to
replace writings from the era portrayed in the TV series "Mad Men." If
someone invented cryonics now as a new idea, how would he or she
present it based on current science, technology and thinking about
"the future," instead of employing paleofuturism from the 1960's
through the 1980's, including Drexler's "nanotechnology" mirage and
talk about the "space age"?

BTW, you know cryonics has reputation problems as a "futuristic" idea
when a new book, "An Optimist's Tour of the Future," dismisses
cryonics early on by comparing it to Alex Chiu's immortality rings.
Contrast that with the way Ed Regis portrays cryonics in a similar
book, "Great Mambo Chicken," published two decades ago. Regis treats
cryonics ironically, but at least he gives cryonicists a hearing.

Reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4RAq9z5RgxYC&lpg=PP1&dq=optimist's%20guide%20to%20the%20future&pg=PT12#v=onepage&q=cryonics&f=false



--
Mark Plus
Life is short: Freeze hard!

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33356

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

Message #33357
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:42:05 -0800 (PST)
From: un person <[email protected]>
Subject: conformity eases fear of death

This article should mean something to all cryos, unless they are idiots:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928013.800-does-the-comfort-of-conformity-ease-thoughts-of-death.html


Aw, well, you're idiots, anyway....

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33357

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

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