56 replies to this topic

[DJS]

**TOPIC SPLIT FROM TERRI SCHIAVO THREAD IN IMMORTALISM**

Shadegrown

Cryopreservation arrives too late (to put it mildly) when the parts of her brain that contained her memory and personality are long gone and scavenged by the body. Mature stem cell engineering wouldn't bring Terri back either. Somehow growing her a new brain intracranially would merely create another human being, an infant's mind from scratch in a woman's body.

Hey Shadegrown. I agree with almost everything you said except the above quotation. Now I understand that this is a slightly tangental train of thought (and I am by no means an expert when it comes to neuro-science...Peter, where are you at? ), but I think with our current level technological sophistication it is just to early to conclusively state that Terri's "memories and personality" are gone forever. It remains an open possibility that her "vital essence" (for lack of a better term) remains locked away somewhere inside of her brain. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that this is the case, only that it is too soon to tell. This is why I advocate cryo-preservation. We should preserve her brain, take it forward with us into the future and then, using advanced future technologies such as full blown nano, see if Terri is "still there" or if she has been irrevocably lost.

*Note* I am advocating what I believe is the correct Immortalist position. I do not believe that from within our current social paradigm cryo-preservation is even a remote possibility in the case of Terri Schiavo.

Edited by DonSpanton, 22 March 2005 - 11:02 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

It is funny that shadegrown brought it up but that is a subject that I kind of agree with him about and I suspect we should open a separate thread. It was exactly what I didn't want to debate here as the subject is probably moot IMHO.

For example if you have advanced Alzheimer's or Spongiform Encephalitis (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) I have grave doubts that much memory or personality is recoverable. Putting the tissues back together assumes there is a kind of *basic registry program* for memory still intact to refer to.

However it is a very different discussion and only tangentially relevant here except that it goes toward why I would rather of the option of cryo while still alive rather than after death from a potentially destructive deterioration of my brain.

[DJS]

Cosmos

Sure, IF it was in fact Terry's will to have her life perpetuated artificially, but it seems clear she did not intend that. The Immortalist position is that one has the right to persist indefinitely, or self-terminate. You could argue that there is reasonable doubt of what her true intent was, but legally her husband is the decision maker in this case and presumably he knows her intent (he has suggested he does). As far as the laws and courts are concerned, her husband has the stronger case and he will probably win out after all is said and done.

Two points.

1) I do not consider cryopreservation the "artificial perpetuation of life", I consider it to be the suspension of life for the purposes of future resuscitation. I believe that you have a strong case that Terri would not have wanted to continue on in a vegitative state. Yet, I do not believe your case is as strong if you wish to argue that Terri would not have wanted to continue living (granted, she was probably not a futurist so she probably never thought about it) in a state of robust health [at some point in the future]. However, there would be an easy way to settle this dispute. If it were possible to reanimate Terri at some point in the future with all of her mental faculties we could do so, and then ask her whether she wished to continue in her future existence, or not. I'm willing to bet she would choose life.

2) I agree that the choice (because Terri did not leave instructions) is ultimately that of her husbands, but this in no way affects the argument I am making. Imagine, if you will, that I am putting myself in the shoes of Terri's husband and arguing what I would do if I were him.

[DJS]

Lazarus

For example if you have advanced Alzheimer's or Spongiform Encephalitis (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease)  I have grave doubts that much memory or personality is recoverable.  Putting the tissues back together assumes there is a kind of *basic registry program* for memory still intact to refer to.

I am not well versed in the specific pathogenic processes involved in Alzheimer's, but the neuro degeneration observed in CJD results from a change in protein conformation (real nasty stuff). This kind of degeneration would probably not be reversable, regardless of the level of technology we possessed. I am not sure that the type of degeneration Terri has experience is comparable to CJD however.

My main point was that I would be hesitant to speak with such certainty about the ultimate nature of Terri's condition and that, in a perfect world where *cost* and *prevailing attitudes* were not factors, there would be no reason not to opt for cryopreservation.

I would rather of the option of cryo while still alive rather than after death from a potentially destructive deterioration of my brain.

I completely agree. If one were in the terminal stages of a disease (particularly a brain disease such as Alzheimer's) one should be allowed to commit euthanasia and immediately proceed to cryopreservation. The US' draconian attitude on issues such as euthanasia has left me scratching my head as to why Alcor and the Cryonics Institute have set up shop over here instead of some place over seas like the Netherlands (where euthanasia is legal).

[bgwowk]

I think a big part of what makes people emotional about this case is that it forces us to face something profoundly uncomfortable: Life and death are not binary states. Religion in particular has a vested interest in preserving life vs. death as a black-and-white issue because the idea that someone can slowly transition between this world and the next is theologically awkward. How can a fetus have half a soul, or someone with Alzheimer's? Even apparent secularists are uncomfortable with the greyness. Evidence speculations in this thread that Terri Schiavo's "vital essence" might still be locked away in what little is left of her brain.

The question is not whether Terri Schiavo is still in there. It's *how much* of Ms. Schiavo is still in there. To quote the prophetic words of Steve Harris from his excellent essay

http://www.alcor.org...nalogWorld.html

It is seldom realized that the issue of death is potentially as politically explosive as the issue of abortion. The reason is that many scientifically sophisticated persons now realize that in the case of death we again deal not with an event, but with a smoothly continuous transformation process from state A to state B. Human beings come into existence a little bit at a time, as the abortion issue has taught us. Unfortunately for the long term future peace of mind of cryonicists, humans go out of existence in the same way.

---BrianW

[DJS]

Even apparent secularists are uncomfortable with the greyness.  Evidence speculations in this thread that Terri Schiavo's "vital essence" might still be locked away in what little is left of her brain.

heh, I should have figured someone would jump on that comment (even though I made sure to qualify it [wis] ). Brian, you're entirely misinterpreted me. I am in no way uncomfortable with what you refer to as the "grey zone" between life and death. You should know by now that I hold no illusions about "immortal souls". What I am pondering is whether the "stuff" that make up Terri Schiavo's "vital essense" -- ie, her memories, her personality, etc [huh] -- are still possibly nestled away somewhere inside of her brain.

You make your opinion on this clear:

Brian

The question is not whether Terri Schiavo is still in there.  It's *how much* of Ms. Schiavo is still in there.

Brian, could you perhaps supply some data to back your up position? Do you know the specifics of Terri's condition?

If it were conclusively demonstrated to me that Terri's brain was destroyed beyond any hope of recovery -- both now and in the future -- then I would drop my arguments for cryopreservation and instead support that Terri be euthanized and given a proper funeral.

Edit: typo; pointed out by Laz [tung]

Edited by DonSpanton, 23 March 2005 - 04:54 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

You should know by now that I hold no illusions about "immoral souls".

I couldn't resist Don I know it was an accident but it is too delicious of one to ignore. )

Isn't this a totally separate discussion. [tung]

[DJS]

oh man, I still didn't catch it until looking at your post a third time... I think I'm losing it today!

[sonia]

If we agree that death is oblivion, then why shouldn't life (however confined) be the default unless someone specifically has a living will saying they want to die in the case of being hooked up to tubes?

Perhaps biotech will make Terri's life better over the next 10-15 years (not perfect, but better). The alternative of cryonics is an unlikely option for her, as I very much doubt her family is considering it. Therefore, the choice to me seems like one between oblivion and a less-well lived life. No?

[Bruce Klein]

Welcome Sonia!

Perhaps keeping Terri on life support may be most logical in the short term, but she's aging.

Highest ethical practice would be to send a rescue team in order to preserve her via cryonics. Degeneration needs to be arrested as soon as possible.

[sonia]

Hi Bruce!

Ok. But what if that's not possible? That is, if her family won't permit it. What should be the default? I would go with life (and, btw, I am also pro-choice).

[sonia]

Well, it seems that we don't really know the wishes of Terri and that's one reason we are in this mess.

My question to the discussion group is this: if we don't know the wishes of the individual, what should the default position/law be? It is unlikely that we'd get Congress to agree that cryonics should be the default, so it seems we have two options: life or death.

[DJS]

And that brings us back to the original issue, which I will answer over in the other thread. [lol]

[Bruce Klein]

Sonia: That is, if her family won't permit it. What should be the default? I would go with life (and, btw, I am also pro-choice).

Correctly predicting which technology is most appropriate in this case is indeed a challenge. But after seeing the level of sophistication we now have with cryonics, visiting both major cryonics facilities (Alcor and Cryonics Institute) and meeting with 21st Century Medicine's Brian Wowk (vitrification), I'm more inclined to suggest the preserve, wait and reanimate option.

But in this case, you are right. Without cryonics as an option for Terri, the default should be to keep her alive on life support for as long as possible. Every avenue should be explored to rejuvenate and repair her mind and body before aging ends her life.

[Lazarus Long]

OK we have raised the issue of cryo but then why not cloning?

If we are dealing a shell of person, a body without any potential of consciousness (an assumption because we are not privy to all details). I also fear that the extent of cerebral damage implies that actually recovering *Terri* is a remote possibility, if at all. I have heard much of her brain has already deteriorated and much of the footage we are being shown in the media is *old news* and *old* select photos.

http://www.miami.edu...avo/CT scan.png

Since we are examining the alternative possibilities in this thread then why not clone if it is the body and its healing that people really desire?

Terri won't come back but a healthy woman would have another chance at life that carries her genes.

We are dealing with two separate issues, one the death of this person but the second is the preservation of her body and the return of that body to good health.

Cloning is not a hypothetical manner of accomplishing the later if we do not pretend that we have solved the questions of her *consciousness.*

I will also point out that this is another reason that *uploading* is a more important option as soon as it becomes possible because then we can preserve our intelligence in the highest state of awareness and all the other options will be enhanced in potential as a result.

[DJS]

My original point with the cryopreservation option was that it might be possible to recover *Terri* in the future. After looking at the link you provided I would have to agree with you that the chances of salvaging Terri are remote.

So I ask you, if the salvaging of *Terri* is impossible, then what's the point of keeping her vegetative body alive? Let's say that Prometheus is right and ten years from now we can rejuvinate Terri's brain and create a new consciousness. Would it be ethically justifiable to create a new consciousness in this manner, in a potentially compromised body? Why would we want to do this?

If Terri is gone, Terri is gone. The body is irrelevant. The mind is what matters. Cloning the body doesn't alter this fact.

In terms of what "Terri would have wanted": I just recently read an article written by a medical professional who reported that he had asked literally thousands of people if they would want to be maintained in a vegitative state with no hope of return to their former selves. Not one person said they would want to remain alive in such a state. This makes sense to me. No one would want to exist in such a state. Terri would not have wanted to exist in such a state.

[Lazarus Long]

If Terri is gone, Terri is gone. The body is irrelevant. The mind is what matters. Cloning the body doesn't alter this fact.

I raised the point of cloning not to advocate but to highlight this aspect.

I would be greatly encouraged if the outcome of this private tragedy and public debacle were an open and rational discourse on what defines being alive.

If people are trying to preserve bodies then cloning is more rational than feeding tubes. If people want to preserve life then it is high time that we tried to better understand and define exactly what that is.

You all know this comes down to the recurring theme of soul versus mind.

[bgwowk]

Laz is right. For a case like this, preservation and future repair by cryonics would be almost equivalent to cloning.

The press is reporting that her cerebral cortex was injured by hypoxia/ischemia caused by several minutes of cardiac arrest 15 years ago. If so, then we are not talking about mere damage or inactivation amenable to future repair as in cryonics. That kind of repair is only theoretically feasible if preservation occurs within hours of injury. A better analogy here is what happens to the cortex of someone left clinically dead for years (the compromised area being deprived of blood circulation indefinitely). It dissolves into nothing of course. Most cases of PVS caused by hypoxia/ischemia end up hydrocephalic, with areas of the brain critical to personhood replaced with cerebral spinal fluid (essentially empty space). Any "repair" of empty space would be de-novo reconstruction, hence the equivalence of cloning.

Those who speak of compassion for "her", and "her" quality of life possibly being improved in the future by biotech still don't get it. There is little, if any, of the original "her" left. Schaivo is not merely a disabled person. Without a cortex, if indeed there is none, Schaivo's body is not a person at all.

I am deeply bothered that large segments of the pubic are giving so much weight to the external appearance and apparent behavior of Schaivo's body rather than asking the hard neurological questions that need to be asked. Such superficial emotional approaches to difficult medical questions bodes poorly for the future of medicine. Consider cryonics, which is the exact opposite of the Schaivo case: Excellent neurological preservation in an unresponsive aesthetically unappealing form (neuropreservation). The same anti-scientific aesthetic-driven standard that drives the hysteria of the Schiavo case is precisely the standard that dooms public perception of cryonics. There was no special session of Congress called to protect Ted Williams when relatives tried to pull his cryonics plug.

Would I want to be cryopreserved if I ended ended up severely neurologically compromised like Schiavo? Yes, as soon as possible. Ideally within hours or less of an MRI determining that perfusion was compromised to major parts of my brain.

Do I think what's left of Schaivo should be cryopreserved? In an abstract sense of not wanting to give up on anybody, yes. But the practical reality of this case is that multiple courts have agreed based on testimony of others that she did not want her body maintained in its present state. Recall that even staunch immortalist Roy Walford was not cryopreserved because only two days after exactly the same kind of hypoxic/ischemic insult that Schaivo received, an MRI showed his brain damaged to an extent that his family believed he longer would have wanted cryonics.

http://www.cryonet.o...p.cgi?msg=24045

Cryonicists couldn't argue with the decision because they know that even Drexlerian nanotech can't bring back what isn't there anymore.

----BrianW

[Matt]

So basicly, Even with advanced Nanotechnology and Biotechnology recovering the person that was Terri would be impossible. You would just be creating another brain that would grow like a childs brain does and learn from scratch developing a whole new self.

If the scans I have seen on the Internet of the brian of Terri are indeed her's then I agree that Cryonics shouldnt really be an option as we are not saving anybody as she does not exist and will never again no matter what type of technology you use.

Im hearing conflicting reports saying she did not have any tests done and then some that say she did... I mean which is it? and What scans did she have?

Have she had scans to look at brain activity and structure and is this her CT scan?




Also take a look at this:


Figure 1. Before shunt placement



Figure 2. After shunt placement

http://www.patientce...s/how_work.html

[shadegrown]

I couldn't agree more, BrianW. The decision Roy Walford's family made seems reasonable and I would express quite similar preferences if I were signed up for cryonics.

But how to increase one's odds of being cryonized before neural decay renders the exercise futile? Speaking for transhumanists from continental Europe, our options don't look too good so far. I like DonSpanton's suggestion that Dutch law might improve things here. Maybe the Netherlands would allow a terminally ill person to end their life under medical observation, and be directly transferred to a cryonics facility without time-consuming red tape. Alcor & Cryonics Institute officials reading this please feel encouraged to investigate...

[bgwowk]

who182 wrote:

So basicly, Even with advanced Nanotechnology and Biotechnology recovering the person that was Terri would be impossible.

Of course it's not a binary question. It's a question of degree. Our culture seems unable to cope with the issue of different degrees of survival. Too bad, because as medical technology progresses, there are going to be more and more cases of partial survival. In fact, with advanced nanotech you enter a realm where ordinary death doesn't even exist anymore (unless a person is vaporized in a spaceship crash or something) because you will always be able to repair whatever is left of a body to restore perfect health. Survival will always be a question of how much amnesia there is.

Perhaps cryonicist Thomas Donaldson is right. He wrote many years ago that legally and culturally a person might always be regarded as having survived no matter how much amnesia existed after a repair process. "John was hurt so badly in his accident that he lost all his memories."

http://www.alcor.org...reForDeath.html

shadegrown wrote:

The decision Roy Walford's family made seems reasonable and I would express quite similar preferences if I were signed up for cryonics.

I should point out that Walford and Schaivo (in our hypothetical discussion of cryonics for her) are exceptional cases in that they did not have advance arrangements. Most people when they make advance arrangements choose to be cryopreserved regardless of biological circumstances. Beyond the ethical point of never giving up (a point or view that many cryonicists share with social conservatives), there are good practical reasons for this. There have been several cases of relatives deliberately sabotaging cryonics cases, such as not notifying Alcor when a member was dying, knowing that they would gain financially if the member was injured too badly for cryopreservation. When you make your arrangements (which every immortalist should do while they are still healthy), I would urge you to think carefully before putting any limits on the conditions under which you want to be cryopreserved. Make sure your family is taken care of financially. Having done that, don't provide incentive, even unconscious, for your own care to be compromised.

---BrianW

[shadegrown]

BrianW:

There have been several cases of relatives deliberately sabotaging cryonics cases, such as not notifying Alcor when a member was dying, knowing that they would gain financially if the member was injured too badly for cryopreservation.

I will keep that in mind if and when cryonics becomes a feasible option in my country. Not that I distrust my family members but it's perhaps a good idea to have the money set aside for cryosuspension go to charity rather than heirs in case something goes seriously wrong.
Are medical alert tattoos popular among cryonicists? Seems a bit unaesthetic at first....ah, so what....better safe than vain.

[shadegrown]

Found this summary of the neurological evidence...
http://img85.exs.cx/...168324028el.gif

diagram taken from:
http://www.sun-senti...0,6305655.story

Draw your own conclusions.

Edited by shadegrown, 25 March 2005 - 08:54 PM.

[shadegrown]

It's often said that "the experts disagree" on this case. However, looking for background info on the disagreeing experts just gave me another glimpse at how ideologized a personal tragedy can become:

http://politics.rele...ogarticle/26908

Dr. William Hammesfahr, a Florida neurologist who claims that he can help Terri Schiavo, has promoted his treatment plan on Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and has been cited by anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, a spokesman for Schiavo's parents, in newspaper articles.
[...]
Hammesfahr appears on screen saying: "Oh, absolutely. She'll definitely be able to communicate. She'll probably be able to communicate verbally over the course of about two years of treatment with medication. And then as far as being able to use her arms and use her legs, she'll be able to use those.

See the medical findings linked in my above post. Hammesfahr can't reverse that kind of brain damage. Hammesfahr might even honestly believe that the brain is just a receiver connecting to a soul like chatroom to client, but he's wrong by all empirical accounts. He can't yank destroyed minds back out of entropic oblivion. He's a quack using people's desperate hopes for an agenda.

http://www.nytimes.c...l/24doctor.html (free registration)

William P. Cheshire Jr., the Florida doctor cited by Gov. Jeb Bush yesterday in his announcement that he would intervene again in the case of Terri Schiavo, is a neurologist and bioethicist whose life and work have been guided by his religious beliefs.

Call me a cynic but I think Jeb didn't have Pubmed citations in mind when he checked this guy's credentials.

The issue eerily reminds me of the bogus "scientific" debate between evolutionary biology and creationism, where one side inexplicably consists almost entirely of wingnuts who accuse an entire field of science of engagement in an evil materialist conspiracy against religion.


Enough of my surly jabs at "he said/she said" politics. This grim mess will hopefully remind me, when the time comes, not only that some people will be going to resist even *healthy* life extension, but that nothing good may come from trying to make them live longer against their expressed wishes. Of course this is easier said than lived by. It seems Michael Schiavo needed to overcome his observational bias that his wife was still minimally conscious before he could bring himself to let her die as she wished.
If a loved one forwent an ageless life sheerly out of a death-embracing mindset, I have no idea how long it would take me to come to terms with that.

And Don, having read your explanation to Mike in the other thread I see better now where you're coming from. Point well taken that there's a distant possibility, however tiny, that neuroscience 101 has it wrong and cryo-preserving Terri's head might be good for something more than letting future historians elucidate the background of an ancient antique war of ethics. However, if I magically knew an injury similar to Terri's inevitably came my way, I would--with my current knowledge--still rather donate an amount of money to medical research than spend it on cryo-preservation. There'd be a high probability that the former might help someone survive versus the almost non-existent chance that the latter might save me personally.

Edited by shadegrown, 27 March 2005 - 05:26 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

You're obfuscating the real bone of contention here, and are also showing a lack of understand as to exactly what cryonics entails. Your head will never be "thawed out" if you are cryogenically preserved. At some point, in the distant future it would be scanned and replicated/recreated using still theoretical molecular nanotechnology. Your consciousness is all about the pattern -- the physical patterns -- in your brain. Once your brain was accurately replicated, the original frozen blob would be thrown in the trash.

Major disagreement with you here. If the original brain is not going to be repaired, but simply copied, don't bother with mine. You might as well just throw it in the trash before the replication. Either way I'll be dead. In your scenario you simply have a copy of me walking around in a couple hundred years, doesn’t do me any good.

[bgwowk]

Everybody is always speaking in terms whether there's "a chance" Terri might still be alive inside that badly damaged brain. But the question is not whether or if, it's *how much*. Survival is a matter of degree. This is true both today and especially in the future with technologies like cryonics reconstructing minds based on partial information.

In the entire media dialogue surrounding this case, I don't recall seeing anyone discuss the issue of partial survival. Probably because anyone sophisticated enough to appreciate that survival is not binary realizes that the degree of survival in the Schiavo case is negligible. Still, it's sobering to observe the extent to which language, culture, and law treat survival as a purely binary issue. It's even more sobering to see how many millions of people believe that a beating heart and a smiling face are all that's needed to decide the issue.

---BrianW