56 replies to this topic

[caston]

On a drivers license (at least here in Australia) you can opt to be a organ donor so that if you die in an accident your organs can be used for transplants for other patients.

Assuming you are only going for neuro presevation and perhaps including your CNS can other remaining organs be used for transplants?

Perhaps there could also be a financial incentive that some of the organs could be sold and the proceeds put into a trust fund to be used as the reanimation incentive.

Edited by YOLF, 09 May 2016 - 05:50 PM.

[Live Forever]

Selling organs is illegal (at least in the United States, maybe not in Australia). I would assume you could still donate your organs, however, depending on how you die.

[bgwowk]

In current medical practice, cryonics and organ donation are generally incompatible. First, to donate major organs you typically have to be declared brain dead. As a cryonicist with a severe brain injury, you would never want to be left on life support long enough for that happen because the cryonics prognosis for someone declared brain dead is poor. There is a new practice in which organs are sometimes harvested after cardiac death rather than brain death. That would theoretically be compatible with neuropreservation, but a high degree of coordination between cryonics experts and the organ havesting team would be required. As a practical matter, it's unlikely that an organ harvesting team would alter their procedures to accomodate cryonics. There are also legal complications, such as who has legal custody of the anatomical donation when there is a coexisting consent for cryonics and organ donation. Perhaps someday cryonics will become common enough that these legal and medical conflicts will be resolved, but for now the conflicts are problematic.

[YOLF]

So a few questions:

• If the eyes are part of the brain and store their own visual memories, does someone who has an eye transplant get your visual memories? Is loss of the eyes loss of self in any way?
• Why can't we get this worked out now? No one is going to want a brain transplant and if you line up the beneficiaries, you can harvest the brain and the organs all at the same time, or at least quite a few of them. Even if it's just the most important stuff. Why can't I die on demand and escape the pain of aging at my own discretion? Why use up valuable organ health when others could benefit? Why have to live with scars, accelerated aging, and compromised health if we could just go into cryopreservation? Is the donation of life itself not incentive enough to bring us back? In The First Immortal this was a thing, you hit the switch, they saved your head and your organs went to save lives. Why don't we see alot of people rushing to make this happen... According to google, you save 8 lives and improve 50 more when you become an organ donor. With 2000 cryonicists, that's 16,000 people saved and 116,000 lives improved. Is that not enough people to make this happen? That's alot of people. Why aren't we doing this? You freeze my head with Alcor and the rest can be yours as soon as I get a few things worked out. Getting preserved young is the way to go and improves tissue penetrations and the quality of preservation. If your organs go to organ donors they may donate them to the next recipient when they pass? The value of doing this kind of thing is very high imo, plus there is always the uncertainty of getting priced out of cronics by rising prices.

 

[ceridwen]

Actually the practice is very different from the theory when it comes to organ donation. Vital organs are frequently removed while the patient who donates the organs is still alive

[ceridwen]

In Wales organs are automatically taken unless one opts out of the donation scheme.

[Antonio2014]

In Wales organs are automatically taken unless one opts out of the donation scheme.

 

The same in Spain.

 

@YOLF:

 

- Eyes aren't part of the brain nor store memories.

 

- For neuro, usually the brain is not extracted but the whole head instead. Stephen Coles was one exception for Alcor: http://www.alcor.org...-131st-patient/

 

I, for one, would go for whole-head neuro, to prevent manipulation damage to the brain.

Edited by Antonio2014, 04 May 2016 - 06:14 AM.

[YOLF]

Actually the practice is very different from the theory when it comes to organ donation. Vital organs are frequently removed while the patient who donates the organs is still alive

 

The idea here would be to decide that during a certain window of time that I was going to have my head removed, so get the patients lined up at the hospital and ready... Management of the project would be different b/c they'd know the approximate date of availability with certainty. As for organs while still alive and walking if you're talking about that... I wouldn't want to deal with scars and lowered function/QoL. But none of that is an issue with voluntary cryonics, and of course, we'll have robust bioprinting sooner or later.

[YOLF]

 

In Wales organs are automatically taken unless one opts out of the donation scheme.

 

The same in Spain.

 

@YOLF:

 

- Eyes aren't part of the brain nor store memories.

 

- For neuro, usually the brain is not extracted but the whole head instead. Stephen Coles was one exception for Alcor: http://www.alcor.org...-131st-patient/

 

I, for one, would go for whole-head neuro, to prevent manipulation damage to the brain.

 

 

All the more reason why voluntary cryonics for organ donation needs to replace the current way of doing things so it can be compatible with the rest of the world. Does Spain have a giant wait list for kidneys like we do? 

[Danail Bulgaria]

Its like writing a contract between cryonicysts and non-cryonicysts.

 

If you allow us,the freezers, to cut our heads 1 week before death and dump them in liquid nitrogen, we will give you, the mortals, our organs.

I want to see the face of the judge lol lol lol

 

On the other side remember, that the more compromises you make, the longer you will need to stay in the liquid nitrogen until it is possible to be thawed back alive, and the smaller the chance for that.

Cryopreserving the entire body - the biggest chance

Cryopreserving the head only - smaller chance

Cryopreserving only the brain - the smallest chance

If you have your entire body, then it will only needed to be thawed and repaired in the distant future.

If you have only the head, then you will have to wait, and to take the risk to become possible an entire new body to be built and attacjed to your head.

Andfinally, if you have only the brain, then you will have to wait for the science to be able to build an entire new body arround the brain.

 

I advise you all cryonicists to preserve yourself with the entire body.

[YOLF]

I disagree, Alcor's favorite and preferred preservation is neuro (whole head), and bioprinting looks like a great way to correct all manner of physiological problems. Why be stuck with the same physiology I had when I went in that is plagued by the pathologies of the past? It would be easier to bioprint a new body that is less susceptible to those problems and it will have a higher degree of fidelity than using gene therapies that might miss certain cell groups. In the long term it simplifies the upkeep of our existence to go with neuro. Of course, I'm making the assumption that they'll just laser print cellular components including DNA with error correction as Boston Genomics (name?) is doing it. Then you can have all the right genetics in all the right parts with a maximized compatibility as everything will be based off of you. Your adaptive immune system might even see some improvements in this scenario. The possibilities for improvement are endless.

 

You can put new parts in an antique car, but rigors of aging will have rusted the frame and make the possibility of complete repair a much more arduous task. Why do that when you could put the driver (brain) in a new and improved car (body)? Then you only need to invest your time into preserving and repairing the brain, maybe in a temporary robot body or some such and your biology will be entirely your decision. You'll be all your favorite proportions. 

[YOLF]

As I think about it, I feel that if cryonics came later, after organ transplants became a thing, that it would have been used to increase the number of voluntary organ donors. Meaning we basically have until organ donation becomes mandatory in the US and where ever else it isn't to get this movement started or it will be too late.

 

I'd like to suggest that anyone reading this sign up as an organ donor and then step out of the program due to to cryonics incompatibility. This way we can start using our numbers to affect change and get this started while there is more incentive.

[Danail Bulgaria]

The bad thing in the futuristics is, that there are many open questions about the future. 

 

This makes a large variety of beliefs. The cryonics for the human being is some sort of a belief (since still it is not successfull for people). 

 

My current belief for the cryonics is that it is more likely the medicine to develope and because of that the physiology you had before the death will be normalized and the diseases you were plagued with will be cured.

Thawing -> reviving -> curing -> immortalizing 

in my belief is more liklely than 

Growing a new body -> thawing -> reviving -> curing -> transplanting the new body -> immortalizing

 

In the nature there are biological species, that freeze and thaw alive in the soil and the water each whinter. They are all whole body patients. Id on't know a model in the nature that cryopreserves its head only. Do you know about a specie, that cuts its head, freezes, thaws back alive and regenerates its body? 

[Danail Bulgaria]

.... 

 

- Eyes aren't part of the brain nor store memories.

.... 

 

 

The retina histologically is composed from 10 cellular layers.  

 

https://www.google.b...iact=mrc&uact=8

 

In the most inner layer the cone cells and rod cells are directly connected to each-other with synapses, and transmit neural impulses between each-other. This is why in the most new medical books on ophtalmology (official books for medical students) these cells are equalized with the neurons, or are called directly neurons. It is also supposed, that in this layer is being performed the first initial processing of the visual information. One medical book in bulgarian named the eye "a small external part of the brain outside the skull". This concept is supported with the fact, that the eyes in the embryo form from the same portion, that forms the brain. 

 

https://www.google.b...-TPOSCyM:&w=728

 

 

So, there is bread in the notion, that the eye is a part of the brain, and the brain function. 

Edited by seivtcho, 05 May 2016 - 08:33 AM.

[elfanjo]

Head transplant is still possible from a whole body. Only drawback is the price

[Antonio2014]

All the more reason why voluntary cryonics for organ donation needs to replace the current way of doing things so it can be compatible with the rest of the world. Does Spain have a giant wait list for kidneys like we do? 

 

Spain is the #1 in the world for organ donations (last year, ~36 donors per million people). It has been so every year in the last 25 years. The mean in the EU is ~20 per million and in the US it's ~26 per million. Anyway, other donations, like blood donations, are low compared to other countries, and supply is lower than demand. I didn't find data for Spanish waiting list, only for European's. Around 4,000 people died in the EU in 2014 waiting for a transplant.
 

[Antonio2014]

Cryopreserving the entire body - the biggest chance

Cryopreserving the head only - smaller chance

Cryopreserving only the brain - the smallest chance

 

From what I have read at Alcor, CI, and other websites, it's the other way around. Neuro (whole head) is the safest, because it allows for faster perfusion and faster cooling.

 

In the most inner layer the cone cells and rod cells are directly connected to each-other with synapses, and transmit neural impulses between each-other. This is why in the most new medical books on ophtalmology (official books for medical students) these cells are equalized with the neurons, or are called directly neurons. It is also supposed, that in this layer is being performed the first initial processing of the visual information.

 

That doesn't mean that they are part of the brain. We have neurons in the gut too, and it's not part of the brain either.

Edited by Antonio2014, 05 May 2016 - 02:19 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

The official claim of the today's ophtalmology (2016) is that the retina is not only a receptor outside the brain, but a receptor plus neural network doing initial information processing, functionally connected with the brain. This is what I know. Why exactly the retina is referred some times as a small brain part token out of the skull I am not absolutely sure, since I am not an ophtalmologyst. Perhaps because in the ebrional development this is exactly what happens - some part of the forming brain makes the eyes and pushes them out of the skull. But you may ask an ophtalmologist why exactly. If there is an ophtalmologyst in the forum, now it is a good time to give an expertise. 

 

I don't see why neuros should be easier than whole bodies. You can place blood vessel catheters to the jugular veins and the internal carotid arteries, and transfuse the brain and the head with the same speed. 

[Antonio2014]

See for example this: http://www.alcor.org...hborsThink.html

 

From there:
 

The first and simplest of the scientific/technical objections to neurosuspension raised by Dr. Segall is that "since the attachment of the head to the body does not alter the rate at which the head can be frozen, it makes little difference, using current cryonics techniques, whether or not the head is attached."

 

This statement is true only if a decision is made to disregard the proper cooling of the patient's body during descent to -79°C. Unless the patient is allowed to freeze uniformly, he or she will experience shell freezing. Shell freezing occurs when the outside of the patient freezes solidly before the interior of the patient freezes. Subsequent freezing and expansion of the interior water deforms the frozen, rigid outer shell of material, causing it to crack and promoting intracellular freezing. The mass and diameter of the head allow it to be cooled far faster than the mass of the patient's body, and to avoid shell freezing careful control between surface and core temperatures is required.

 

Dr. Segall also leaves unaddressed the issue of the longer perfusion times required to introduce (and presumably remove) cryoprotective agent (CPA) in whole body patients. As Dr. Perry's paper elsewhere in this issue indicates, whole body patients will experience roughly a 60% longer exposure of the brain to toxic CPA because of the "high flow" nature of cerebral circulation as compared to the remainder of the body (8). Additionally, the logistics of handling whole body patients and the thermal inertia they represent to the cooling bath mean that they will experience even longer periods of relatively high temperature exposure to CPA than their neurosuspension contemporaries.

 

Also:

 

Finally, there is the delayed revival scenario.

 

This scenario holds that the technology required to revive some (if not all) suspension patients will be equal to reviving whole body patients first since "all of them is already there." In other words, it is easier to repair than to replace. This argument has both strengths and weaknesses. First, let's look at the strengths. For a patient who is young, suffering from a "simple" disease like leukemia or muscular dystrophy, and who is suspended using only slightly damaging techniques, revival might occur decades or even a century or so sooner than if he went the neurosuspension route.

 

This argument may very well be valid. For this reason both Alcor and I recommend that people provide for the likelihood of improved suspension techniques and suspension while comparatively young. Unfortunately, such a scenario does not describe the average person entering suspension. Current suspension techniques are damaging, and the vast majority of people who need suspension are old and suffering from multiple organ system failure. To act as if this were not the case now would seem very foolish. It makes sense to prepare for the worst (and most likely) scenario and hold the best (and currently least likely scenario) as a contingency to be exercised when it is appropriate to do so.

 

But for those suspended now or in the foreseeable future, a case could be made that neuropatients will be revived first because it will be much more difficult to "repair" than "replace." Many people object to regeneration of the body because it will be made up of different material. Repair thus implies that the original molecules are retained, the original "stuff" which makes the person up. What will happen in the case of an elderly person in need of enormous structural overhaul? Having to deal with complicated repairs laden with philosophical issues may greatly delay revival! Certainly no one today tries to repair worn out and broken parts in either complicated or simple equipment -- they are replaced because it is cost-effective and faster by far to do so.

 

Edited by Antonio2014, 05 May 2016 - 03:21 PM.

[YOLF]

The bad thing in the futuristics is, that there are many open questions about the future. 

 

This makes a large variety of beliefs. The cryonics for the human being is some sort of a belief (since still it is not successfull for people). 

 

My current belief for the cryonics is that it is more likely the medicine to develope and because of that the physiology you had before the death will be normalized and the diseases you were plagued with will be cured.

Thawing -> reviving -> curing -> immortalizing 

in my belief is more liklely than 

Growing a new body -> thawing -> reviving -> curing -> transplanting the new body -> immortalizing

 

In the nature there are biological species, that freeze and thaw alive in the soil and the water each whinter. They are all whole body patients. Id on't know a model in the nature that cryopreserves its head only. Do you know about a specie, that cuts its head, freezes, thaws back alive and regenerates its body? 

 

Think about it this way:

Thawing > Reviving/immortalizing the brain > Printing a new already immortal body around it >  Long youthful life with minimal operations...

[YOLF]

 

.... 

 

- Eyes aren't part of the brain nor store memories.

.... 

 

 

The retina histologically is composed from 10 cellular layers.  

 

https://www.google.b...iact=mrc&uact=8

 

In the most inner layer the cone cells and rod cells are directly connected to each-other with synapses, and transmit neural impulses between each-other. This is why in the most new medical books on ophtalmology (official books for medical students) these cells are equalized with the neurons, or are called directly neurons. It is also supposed, that in this layer is being performed the first initial processing of the visual information. One medical book in bulgarian named the eye "a small external part of the brain outside the skull". This concept is supported with the fact, that the eyes in the embryo form from the same portion, that forms the brain. 

 

https://www.google.b...-TPOSCyM:&w=728

 

 

So, there is bread in the notion, that the eye is a part of the brain, and the brain function. 

 

 

Has anyone with an eye transplant started "looking at thing with new eyes?"

[YOLF]

 

All the more reason why voluntary cryonics for organ donation needs to replace the current way of doing things so it can be compatible with the rest of the world. Does Spain have a giant wait list for kidneys like we do? 

 

Spain is the #1 in the world for organ donations (last year, ~36 donors per million people). It has been so every year in the last 25 years. The mean in the EU is ~20 per million and in the US it's ~26 per million. Anyway, other donations, like blood donations, are low compared to other countries, and supply is lower than demand. I didn't find data for Spanish waiting list, only for European's. Around 4,000 people died in the EU in 2014 waiting for a transplant.
 

 

 

So then, not all people qualify to be organ donors? Or perhaps it only take 36 per million to fill the need in Spain. 4000 seems pretty low compared to other figures I've seen.

[Antonio2014]

I found this website with a lot of information: http://www.irodat.org/

 

Actually, Spain is the #1 for deceased donors, but for living donors the #1 is Turkey: http://www.irodat.or...5_December2.pdf

[YOLF]

I found this website with a lot of information: http://www.irodat.org/

 

Actually, Spain is the #1 for deceased donors, but for living donors the #1 is Turkey: http://www.irodat.or...5_December2.pdf

 

So who will have the highest number of cryo-donors?

[Antonio2014]

I'm not sure cryonics and organ donation are compatible. You need a working heart and lungs to do the cryonics procedure. And if you extract some other organs before, like the kidneys, you need to seal the wound before the procedure starts.

 

I also found this:
 

For the most part good candidates for organ donation are not good candidates for cryonics and most cryonics patients are not good candidates for organ donation. A good candidate for organ donation is one that is "brain dead" due to a trauma to the brain, such as might occur in an automobile accident. Preferred organ donors are young and organs are not accepted at all from elderly persons. Average age of death in most Western countries is older than is acceptable for organ donation. People dying of cancer, communicable disease or autoimmune disease cannot be accepted as organ donors. Almost all cryonics patients would be rejected as organ donors due to cause or age of legal death.

 

http://www.benbest.c...yoFAQ.html#_VQ_

Edited by Antonio2014, 05 May 2016 - 07:09 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Think about it this way:

Thawing > Reviving/immortalizing the brain > Printing a new already immortal body around it >  Long youthful life with minimal operations...

 

 

Thawing > Reviving/immortalizing the brain > Printing a new already immortal body around it > Long youthful life with minimal operations

 

compared with

 

Thawing -> Reviving (the entire body) -> Curing -> Immortalizing (living a never ending life thanks to the future medicine).

 

Each step of these two paths has a chance to happen in the future.

Thawing with Thawing are equal. Dismissing them from the equation.

 

I suppose that reviving the brain will require the same (nano- micro- or whatever) technologies, that would require reviving the whole body.

Dismissing them too.

 

I suppose, that your "Long youthful life with minimal operations" is actually what I meaned "Immortalizing (living a never ending life thanks to the future medicine)"

Taking them out too.

 

What remains is Curing V/S Bioprinting a new body

 

Which chance is higher - the chance the future medicine to be able to cure everything we die today or the bioprinting.

What I have seen from the medicine in my life makes me believe, that the first chance is higher.

 

By the way, in your pathway why you dismiss " transplanting the new body" step?

Transplanting a new body to a head for people is still fiction. It is another step providing a possible percent of failure.

[YOLF]

I'm not sure cryonics and organ donation are compatible. You need a working heart and lungs to do the cryonics procedure. And if you extract some other organs before, like the kidneys, you need to seal the wound before the procedure starts.

 

I also found this:
 

For the most part good candidates for organ donation are not good candidates for cryonics and most cryonics patients are not good candidates for organ donation. A good candidate for organ donation is one that is "brain dead" due to a trauma to the brain, such as might occur in an automobile accident. Preferred organ donors are young and organs are not accepted at all from elderly persons. Average age of death in most Western countries is older than is acceptable for organ donation. People dying of cancer, communicable disease or autoimmune disease cannot be accepted as organ donors. Almost all cryonics patients would be rejected as organ donors due to cause or age of legal death.

 

http://www.benbest.c...yoFAQ.html#_VQ_

The idea would be to basically get rid of whole body suspension, or leave it only for those who really want it... Though they have artificial hearts... The lungs might only be made to breath for their own preservation... is the air needed for the preservation? Can't we just put a bubble system like a fish tank has somewhere in the perfusion apparatus if necessary?I wonder how well gasses would work for cryopreservation or cryoprotectant intermediaries?

[YOLF]

 

Think about it this way:

Thawing > Reviving/immortalizing the brain > Printing a new already immortal body around it >  Long youthful life with minimal operations...

 

 

Thawing > Reviving/immortalizing the brain > Printing a new already immortal body around it > Long youthful life with minimal operations

 

compared with

 

Thawing -> Reviving (the entire body) -> Curing -> Immortalizing (living a never ending life thanks to the future medicine).

 

Each step of these two paths has a chance to happen in the future.

Thawing with Thawing are equal. Dismissing them from the equation.

 

I suppose that reviving the brain will require the same (nano- micro- or whatever) technologies, that would require reviving the whole body.

Dismissing them too.

 

I suppose, that your "Long youthful life with minimal operations" is actually what I meaned "Immortalizing (living a never ending life thanks to the future medicine)"

Taking them out too.

 

What remains is Curing V/S Bioprinting a new body

 

Which chance is higher - the chance the future medicine to be able to cure everything we die today or the bioprinting.

What I have seen from the medicine in my life makes me believe, that the first chance is higher.

 

By the way, in your pathway why you dismiss " transplanting the new body" step?

Transplanting a new body to a head for people is still fiction. It is another step providing a possible percent of failure.

 

 

Bioprinting is much easier than curing, or at the very least will have a superior result, and that's what I'm looking for. A bioprinted body made using organ printing tech to the nth will bypass some serious difficulties and be exactly what we make it with no caveats or mispositioned genes etc. It's like building a new car vs fixing an old one. It's flawless versus restored... when have you seen a restored car that was really perfect when you take a look beyond the glitz and shiny new parts... I think I'd rather avoid the possibility of feeling like it isn't enough or like I still have something in me that's old an holding me back.

 

The brain will need fewer technologies to fix it than the entire body. It's a big problem, not impossible, just complicated. 

[Danail Bulgaria]

So, it is again a matter of beliefs.

 

In your beliefs,bioprinting is easier than curing. In mine the opposite.

 

You prefer a new body. I prefer my own body aging backwards to my 20's-30's.

 

If you want we may discuss further different cryonics options and try to calculate the most probabble of them. It will be definately interesting.

 

 

 

 

In my urrent belief reviving the whole body is with a higher chance of happening, because it happens today. In the reanimation rooms in the hospitals all over the world there are currently revived fresh death people. Well, maybe you will not be considered freshly death if you have stayed death for 1000 years for example, but if you are in the very low temperatures, biologically you will not be distinguishable from a fresh corpse. Reviving of whole body fresh corpse is a near 100% chance of happening for the future. You know, everything, that is happening now (2016) in some routine bases has some sort of a certainty of happening in the year of 3016.

 

For reviving of the head or the brain only, I haven't met such a thing in the official medical literature today (2015-2016). This means, that the chance for that is definately lower, and today it should be 0%  .For the future it is a secret of the time. It may happen, may not. I definately wiould not place 100% chance of happening for the head revival before I don't see it happen.

 

Thawing -> Reviving the entire body -> Curing -> Immortalizing (living a never ending life thanks to the future medicine).

=

x% of 100% of y% of z%

[Antonio2014]

Though they have artificial hearts... The lungs might only be made to breath for their own preservation... is the air needed for the preservation?

 

Yes. If you don't do it, ischemic damage in the brain (and elsewere) is produced.

 

If a person is declared legally dead immediately upon cessation of heartbeat & respiration, nearly all of the cells in that person's brain may still be alive. Organ transplantation would not be feasible were it not for the fact that legal death does not declare the death of all cells, tissues and organs -- including the brain.

 

But within 5-10 minutes without oxygen or nutrient degenerative processes begin in the brain. The main initial degenerative processes, however, are in the circulatory system -- blood agglutination and vascular spasm. Brain ultrastructure can actually be maintained up to one hour without oxygen or nutrient. Attempts to restore blood circulation within even 10-15 minutes can be damaging. In reperfusion injury restoration of circulation after a long delay actually causes the blood oxygen to oxidize tissues rather than revive them.

 

Within a few hours at room temperature ischemic injury, release of arachidonic acid from membranes and lactic acid produced by anaerobic metabolism (metabolism in the absence of oxygen) increases the acidity of tissues, including brain tissue. Lysosomes (acidic organelles containing hydrolytic enzymes) burst, further degrading tissue. Anaerobic clostridium bacteria (gangrene) accelerates tissue degredation. Within 24 hours at room temperature a dead person's brain will have virtually dissolved. Cryonics procedures must be applied much sooner for there to be a reasonable hope of success.

 

[...]

 

The artificial circulation established during initial cooldown can allow for the delivery of medications to the patient's bloodstream which will reduce tissue degradation and facilitate cryopreservation. Such medications include heparin (to prevent blood coagulation), dextrose (nutrient) and antioxidants (to reduce ischemic injury). (For a more complete list see cryonics medications.)

 

http://www.benbest.c...cs/summary.html

 

See also:

 

http://www.benbest.c...s/ischemia.html

 

http://www.benbest.c...html#medication