1 reply to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 50
From: Kevin Q. Brown
Subject: Death of Death in Cryonics
Date: 29 Dec 1988

His thesis was that cryonics does not actually
involve freezing dead people; instead it redefines death so that cryonic
suspension saves terminally ill people, not dead people. This is an important
distinction because, according to Wowk, the failure of cryonicists to present
cryonics as a life-saving technology rather than a death reversal technology
is the source of their major public relations problems.

Cryonics redefines death because death can no longer be determined by
absence of respiration, heart beat, brain waves, or any other metabolic
function. Instead, Wowk proposes a definition that is more robust in the
face of medical advances:
"Death: the absolute and irreversible loss of life, which occurs in
human beings when their brain structure is destroyed."
People who are cryonically suspended while their brain structure is still
(mostly) intact are thus not dead. Today's physicians and laws are simply
mistaken when they declare a person dead shortly after cessation of some of
the major metabolic functions.

Of course, once cryonics patients are seen as alive, not dead, then
(as Eric Drexler pointed out in the Aug. 1988 Cryonics)

[thefirstimmortal]

X-Message-Number: 292
From: Kevin Q. Brown
Subject: Patient Defined Death in New Jersey
Date: 10 Apr 1991

Patient Defined Death in New Jersey

The top headline on Page One of the Tue. April 9, 1991 Star-Ledger was:

Landmark Law Lets Patient Define Death

and the opening paragraph read:

"New Jersey elevated the principle of religious liberty to new heights
yesterday as Gov. Jim Florio signed a bill, the first of its kind in
the nation, basing a determination of death on a patient's religious
beliefs."

So far, that sounded promising for cryonicists. Perhaps the Venturist
Certificate of Religious Belief (which invokes a religious objection to
autopsy) could be strengthened to also specify favorable conditions for
declaring legal "death". (The text of NJSA 52:17B-88.2 at the end of this
message *** shows the legal support for religious objection to autopsy in NJ.)
After reading the full article, though, I do not see any immediate application
of this law toward cryonics in New Jersey. A sidebar titled "Highlights of
the Law" summarized the legislation:

"To be declared brain dead, the patient must have sustained
'irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain,
including the brain stem.'
Patients with religious objections to brain death can only be
declared dead under the traditional criteria of irreversible loss
of heartbeat and breathing.
Transplant surgeons may not declare brain death.
Physicians and nurses who declare death in accordance with the law
may not be sued or prosecuted."

Since cryonicists do not want to wait until brain death to do a suspension,
this law appears to be oriented mainly toward handling cases similar to that
of Karen Ann Quinlan (who was in a vegetative coma and for years could not
legally be 'unplugged'). So why should cryonicists be interested in this
law, especially if they do not live in (or intend to visit) New Jersey?

(1) Current legislation is, by its precedent-setting nature, a
stepping-stone to future legislation. Even if the new law does not
directly address issues important to cryonicists, we should notice
whether or not it is a step in the right direction.

(2) Similar legislation may be enacted in other states or countries. In
particular, the newspaper article cited inquiries about the bill from
lawmakers in California and Michigan and a scholar in Japan.

Is this law a step in the right direction? I think so. Giving the patient
expanded rights to define his or her own death sounds useful to me. Any
other thoughts about this?

- Kevin Q. Brown