An Open Letter Concerning Cryonics Regulation
The following open letter has been provided by Dr. Brian Wowk, a prominent organ preservation researcher, in support of Alcor's opposition to HB 2637 that is pending in the Arizona state legislature.
How media sensationalism catalyzed
an assault on individual rights in Arizona
By Brian Wowk, PhD
February 22, 2004
"No man's life, liberty or property are safe
while the Legislature is in session"
— Judge Gideon J. Tucker (1866)
Since 1972, more than 700 people have made arrangements to be cryopreserved by the Alcor Life Extension Foundation of Scottsdale, Arizona. These people believe their right to choose Alcor, and the procedures performed by Alcor, are as fundamentally important as the right of all dying patients to choose their own care. In the case of Alcor, its members believe that the neurological information archived by Alcor might someday save their lives by allowing access to advanced future technology.
While cryonics remains controversial, a cursory review of the numerous writings and conduct of people in the field shows that they are sincere. It also appears that Alcor in particular seeks and implements the best technologies it can find to achieve its objectives. In most cases these technologies have been implemented under the guidance of physicians and scientists from mainstream medicine who are experts in their field.
Yet on Feb. 6, 2004, bill HB 2637 was introduced into the Arizona legislature. This bill would remove authority over cryonics in Arizona from medical doctors and scientists operating under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), and transfer authority to the Arizona Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers. This is despite the fact that cryonics as practiced by Alcor does not resemble embalming in any manner. Even though cryonics is implemented after legal death, Alcor uses medical methods to preserve neurological information in living tissue, not to cosmetically preserve dead bodies. For embalmers to assume authority over procedures created by brain resuscitation experts, thoracic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and organ preservation scientists, would be comparable to the Funeral Board assuming authority over the job of a brain surgeon.
The bill is being justified on the basis of consumer protection and "right to know" about cryonics procedures. In fact Alcor has explained its procedures in detail in its magazine, books, monographs, and contracts for decades, and on the Internet for many years. Even the most unsophisticated Alcor members seem to know more about Alcor procedures than funeral clients know about embalming or cremation. There are no public reports that even a single Alcor member (i.e. consumer) wants this legislation. In fact, on cryonics discussion lists, the cryonics consumer reaction to regulatory moves in recent months has been anger. Instead of being treated with technology designed by scientists to preserve life, the final authority over their treatment would be transferred to a regulatory board that specializes in cosmetics and chemicals that destroy life.
The bill does not appear to be backed by anyone who has a personal interest in cryonics. Furthermore, the regulatory board that this bill would impose on Alcor has made alarming comments about cryonics. Arizona Funeral Board Director Rudy Thomas has been quoted as saying, "There's no difference between cryonics and cremation," (Arizona Capitol Times, 23 Sept 2003) and "These companies need to be regulated or deregulated out of business" (New York Times, 14 Oct 2003). Even if Mr. Thomas is merely indifferent to cryonics, and not hostile, what assurance is there that his successor would feel the same? The bill gives the Funeral Board a blank slate to prescribe or proscribe cryonics procedures, even though it disclaims the entire purpose of the field. It is "consumer protection" championed by non-consumers over the objections of actual consumers of cryonics. How did Alcor ever become the target of such patently wrong legislation?
Allegations of Wrongdoing
During the month of August, 2003, a Sports Illustrated article alleging wrongdoing by Alcor appeared on newsstands. The article alleged that a head had been separated from a body, "shaved, drilled with holes, accidentally cracked as many as 10 times...." In the article, and especially in the media coverage that followed, these allegations were presented as shocking news of mishandling and negligence at Alcor.
The Facts
Alcor has been performing neuropreservation (preservation of the brain within the head) as a cryonics procedure for decades. Most Alcor members prefer neuropreservation, in part because it results in less brain injury than whole body freezing. Cryonicists believe that preservation of the brain is the most important part of cryonics. Most "patients" now in storage at Alcor are in fact neuropreservation cases. That Alcor preserves brains within heads is almost common knowledge. The only thing new in recent media reports about neuropreservation at Alcor is the sensationalization of the procedure.
What about "drilled with holes?" To monitor the state of the brain during its procedures, Alcor makes two small (1/4") holes in the skull using a standard neurosurgical tool called a perforator. That's it. Any brain surgery patient in any hospital will have these same holes made using the same tool to begin a procedure called craniotomy to access the brain. One can only imagine why Sports Illustrated chose to draw attention to such a minor procedure, and describe it with the words it did.
What about cracking? In September, 1984, Alcor published in Cryonics magazine the first paper that documented fracturing as a problem in large organs cooled to the temperature of liquid nitrogen. Mainstream scientific journals (Cryobiology) have since published research suggesting that fracturing (not breaking) is to be expected in all large organs preserved by vitrification during cooling below -150°C. Ironically, the same week that the Sports Illustrated story came out, Carnegie Mellon University announced a $1.3 million grant from the federal government specifically to solve the problem of fracturing during cryopreservation. None of this research would be going on if the cause of fracturing were careless handling, as implied by media coverage.
Virtues Portrayed as Vices
Perhaps the most unfair aspect of the allegations against Alcor is that conscientious and well-justified procedures were perceived as wrongdoing.
* Why does Alcor remove heads? Because, according to Alcor, that allows the best possible preservation of the brain. The brain is the primary target of preservation in cryonics.
* Why doesn't Alcor just remove the brain? Because the brain would be injured in the process.
* Why does Alcor make two small holes in the skull? To properly monitor the brain.
* Why does Alcor get "cracks"? All large organs treated with chemicals to suppress ice formation develop invisible fractures during deep cooling. Alcor was the first institution anywhere to discover and monitor fracturing with a unique acoustic (sound detection) technology. Nobody would even know about this problem were it not for Alcor's extraordinary efforts to measure and document it during cryonics cases.
Sensational Journalism
Other articles following the Sports Illustrated story were even more extreme. The same source cited in the Sports Illustrated story was quoted delivering a rich variety of inflammatory invectives, including "unethical", "sickening", "ghastly", "horrific", "desecrated", "destroyed." Surgical instruments became woodworking tools. Cryogenic dewars, named after their inventor, became "gods" named after a brand of whiskey. (Florida Today, 16 Aug 2003).
Journalists continued the escalation. A former COO became a former CEO (Associated Press, 15 Aug 2003). Two small holes became "drilled with holes" (Sports Illustrated, 18 Aug 2003). "Drilled with holes" became "cracked when holes were drilled in it" (Arizona Capitol Times, 17 Feb 2004). Local TV stations produced graphic animations showing a skull cracking and splitting open. (There has never been a reported case in published scientific literature, or Alcor technical reports, of bone ever fracturing during cryopreservation.) And the witch hunt was on.
Consider if a journalist did this expose of the funeral industry: "Funeral Home Scandal: Bodies injected with poison, organs mutilated, remains stuffed into wood boxes and covered with dirt!" It's all true, right? Of course, if a disgruntled apprentice embalmer went to a sports magazine describing in graphic detail the use of a trocar during embalming of a sports celebrity, or the physical effects of cremation, he would be escorted out of the building by security.
The Question of Regulation
Arguments for funeral board regulation of cryonics neglect a very basic difference between the way Alcor and the funeral industry operate. Most funeral business is "at-need," meaning that grieving families seek to arrange services for their loved ones after they are deceased. There is no time for research or investigation of the product or facility performing the procedure. Cryonics, however, is almost entirely "pre-need." People join Alcor before they need Alcor, and typically spend years "kicking the tires" before they finally join. It's very rare for Alcor to accept cryonics cases arranged by next-of-kin. Unless there is a history of involvement or interest in cryonics by the family, informed consent is practically impossible under such circumstances.
The best proof that Alcor handles informed consent well is that in 32 years of Alcor history, no reports can be found of anyone choosing cryonics with Alcor ever going to reporters or authorities to complain that they were misled by Alcor, or regretted their choice of Alcor. Even the family members reported by media to have arranged the cryopreservation alleged by Sports Illustrated (the two youngest children) have expressed no dissatisfaction. Only the eldest daughter, who never wanted cryonics, has complained. Similarly, the disgruntled ex-employee who alleged wrongdoing at Alcor has apparently disclaimed interest in cryonics for himself (New York Times, 14 Aug 2003).
Where, then, are the dissatisfied consumers? Where are the unhappy Alcor members? Where are the family members that wanted cryonics for a loved one, but were let down by it? There appear to be none. There are only people who don't understand cryonics, people who don't want cryonics, and people who don't like what they read in newspapers about cryonics. That is not sufficient justification for a majority to use government force to assume control of a technology desired by a minority with beliefs different from theirs.
Respectfully,
Brian Wowk, PhD
Physicist and Cryobiologist
Corona, California
Edited by mathewsullivan, 25 February 2004 - 12:30 AM.
