• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Are Cryonic Patients Living Humans?


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

Poll: Who would you save? (38 member(s) have cast votes)

Who would you save?

  1. The ten year-old orphan child (15 votes [45.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.45%

  2. The 100 cryonic patients (18 votes [54.55%])

    Percentage of vote: 54.55%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#91 chris_h

  • Guest
  • 71 posts
  • -1 â‚®

Posted 22 January 2008 - 04:58 PM

I would save the child. One person.

What is the expected value of the number of people saved when you try for the cryonic patients? It is 100 times the revival probability, which I suspect almost all would agree is less than one in one hundred...

#92 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125 â‚®

Posted 28 January 2008 - 08:48 PM

Today I was struck by a quote in this article about a pending lawsuit concerning family rights to remains kept for analysis by coroners.

http://www.washingto...8012701652.html

"Human beings relate to the personhood and soul of other living human
beings, but these qualities are extinguished at death," said the
medical examiners' brief. "The real family interest is in the 'soul'
of the deceased, if it continues in an afterlife, or in the memory of
the 'soul', rather than to the dead carcass."

That quote illustrates the primary cultural obstacle to cryonics. Death implies loss personhood. If legal death is equated with actual death, then cryonics is a bizarre interment method for a "dead carcass." Families only have interest in the person, or memory of the person, not the "carcass". This is what happens if cryonics patients are regarded as literally dead. This is why cryonicists must communicate that legal death is a determination of contemporary medical futility, not a determination that a person is truly dead. There is a zone between when people are thought dead today and when they really die.

#93 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702 â‚®
  • Location:Boston, MA
  • âś”

Posted 29 January 2008 - 05:12 AM

I've been following that lawsuit too.

I agree that a cryonicist in suspension must be treated as a patient, with the potential for life. There is yet no precedence under law for the status of a preserved person, certainly no income such as a pension would be paid to a cryonicist while they were suspended, or even if they were re-animated. They are considered dead, per our current legal standards--for the proper dissolution of estates. I don't think you have to say dead is just a "carcass", dead can have potential to live again. When I show my kids pictures of cryonicists who passed away and are in the process of being preserved, for instance, I say that they might get to meet them some day--if they get preserved, if cryonics works. We see them as dead, yet that they could be alive again. I think if this ever gets tested in court, there will be a ruling that the person was legally dead, but then alive again.

Embryos are given these rights of personhood, right now-- since a large percentage of them survive freezing and then are able to be implanted into a uterus, and grow into a baby. Cryonics would be viewed in an entirely different way if a full grown mammal can be taken to cryogenic temperatures for an extended period, then brought back to their own fully functional brain and body. I think at that point the current members in suspension would be seen, by the general public as having a chance at living again. Sadly right now, only cryonicists see them that way.

#94 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125 â‚®

Posted 29 January 2008 - 06:41 AM

I agree that a cryonicist in suspension must be treated as a patient, with the potential for life.

If you have good reason to believe that they might be resuscitable, then you cannot call them dead. You can call them "legally dead" or "clinically dead", but not plain dead without qualification.

There is yet no precedence under law for the status of a preserved person, certainly no income such as a pension would be paid to a cryonicist while they were suspended, or even if they were re-animated. They are considered dead, per our current legal standards--for the proper dissolution of estates...
I think if this ever gets tested in court, there will be a ruling that the person was legally dead, but then alive again.

Yes, they will be seen as "legally dead", because they are legally dead, and then later legally alive again. We have no disagreement about the legalities. The problem is the inappropriate conversion of a legal status into a physical status. If I am found "legally incompetent" that is not proof that am incompetent. It means that I am to be treated under the law as mentally incompetent, not that I actually am incompetent. Did you know that there are circumstances in which a conscious person can be declared legally dead? You would never call a conscious person "dead". Obviously being legally dead is not the same thing as being dead. Legal death is a designation of medical futility, not a determination that someone is dead in the way that death is normally understood in our culture.

When I show my kids pictures of cryonicists who passed away...

You mean people who were cryopreserved, not passed away. The purpose of cryonics is to stop people from passing away. In many circumstances it is uncertain whether cryonics is successful at doing that, although some circumstances are more certain than others. One thing we do know is that when cryopreservation is begun based on DNR (do-not-resuscitate) order, that person has certainly not passed away when the procedure is initiated. You could say that medicine has "passed them by" (legal death) but they have not "passed away" (really died).

We see them as dead, yet that they could be alive again.

That is a mistaken view that causes terrible problems of public perception. Drexler, Merkle, Darwin, Bridge and others are adamant about this. Almost the entire cryonics community, especially newer generations, has come to agree. Teaching cryonics as coming back from the dead may work for young kids who are still blank slates, but it doesn't work for society in general. Please re-read Steve Bridge's letter relating his experiences with high school kids that I posted awhile back. The meaning of "death" in our culture is not the point at which medicine gives up (legal death), but rather the point at which several much more significant things happen. They are

1) The soul leaves the body
2) The body becomes a corpse, with very deep instinctual fear and revulsion attached
3) Any attempt to recall the soul is no longer medicine, but work of the devil
4) Any revival of the body is revival of a *zombie*!!!! (as featured in countless works of fiction)

This is the cultural backdrop against which any description of cryonics as bringing back the dead must operate. It does not compute. Defined as bringing back the dead, cryonics is doomed to be misunderstood. It will continue to be misunderstood as long as that perception exists. To the extent that progress has been made in better understanding of cryonics by the medical community in recent years, it has been through the refutation of that perception.

There are numerous other insidious way in which the mistaken perception of cryonics patients as dead undermines progress in the field, but I hope you are convinced and I don't have to write still more! ;)

By the way, there was a 20/20 story this past Friday about how resuscitation advances in medicine are driving the recognition that there is a "third state" between the time when the heart stops and a person really dies.

Edited by bgwowk, 29 January 2008 - 04:56 PM.


#95 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702 â‚®
  • Location:Boston, MA
  • âś”

Posted 29 January 2008 - 07:45 PM

Yes, I read Steve's letter--and I still don't agree will all of the points. It is funny that I came here to post the article about resuscitation science because I feel it shows that death is not only seen as 1. The soul leaving the body, or 2. The body being a corpse, or 3. Any attempt to recall the soul is no longer medicine, or 4. Any revival of the body is revival of a 'zombie' like creature.

In it they point out that one can be clinically dead, then come back. I think this article shows that cryonicists will also be seen as in that 'third state' with a 'lot' more 'maneuvering room....but also that they will be considered to have once been dead, and then come back. It would have to be this way legally for estate purposes, a 'clinical death'-- then during suspension one being considered to have been in a 'state of suspension' or 'third state'--then alive again. I talk to a lot of people about cryonics who have never heard of it, and over time have seen what people come to agree with more, by their heads shaking in agreement and wanting more information instead of flat out discounting or laughing.

People--adults and children alike, are more willing to believe that cryonics preserves a person who can not be kept alive by modern medicine any longer, when they are 'legally dead' (this is important for some people who want to think they had no more chances, before being preserved--thus preservation is their only chance) for the opportunity that if society continues to advance as it has been, then the people can be brought back to full health--even (as is important for some very sick, or old) into rejuvenated bodies. It is important to remember that not all cryonicists have the same view that patients can not be 'called dead'. I've talked with many who do agree that the patients preserved now are legally dead, but that the definition may change in the future because they are not yet cellularly or informationally irretrievable, what cryonicists consider 'all the way dead'.

I follow all talking points given to me by Alcor when I'm giving interviews, or just presenting information at a social gathering. I cut and pasted two points from Alcor's site, which I hope relate to you how I explain that people are clinically dead by current standards, but that this may change in the future--since they have not lost all their information, or are 'irretrievably dead'. In fact I've explained in detail how patients are biologically alive and not 'dead', to my children--this to us is the basis of being cryonicists--the medical time travel of the cells and information, actually alive but extremely slowed down.


"Q: Aren't cryonics patients dead?

A: Law requires cryonics patients to be legally dead, but this does not mean they are biologically dead. Under ideal conditions, cryonics can begin moments after the heart stops beating. Blood circulation and breathing are then artificially restored, keeping cells of the brain and the rest of the body biologically alive during the early stages of the procedure. The blood chemistry and blood gases (oxygen, carbon dioxide, pH) of a cryonics patient receiving good cardiopulmonary support are similar to those of a legally living person. Cryonics patients are therefore legally dead, but biologically alive, depending on how rapidly procedures are begun after the heart stops. For further clarification of this often confusing issue, please read Cardiopulmonary Support in Cryonics in the Alcor online Library."

and also from Alcor:

"Preventing Death

Death occurs when the chemistry of life becomes so disorganized that normal operation cannot be restored. (Death is not when life turns off. People can and have survived being "turned off".) How much chemical disorder can be survived depends on medical technology. A hundred years ago, cardiac arrest was irreversible. People were called dead when their heart stopped beating. Today death is believed to occur 4 to 6 minutes after the heart stops beating because after several minutes it is difficult to resuscitate the brain. However, with new experimental treatments, more than 10 minutes of warm cardiac arrest can now be survived without brain injury. Future technologies for molecular repair may extend the frontiers of resuscitation beyond 60 minutes or more, making today's beliefs about when death occurs obsolete.

Ultimately, real death occurs when cell structure and chemistry become so disorganized that no technology could restore the original state. This is called the information-theoretic criterion for death. Any other definition of death is arbitrary and subject to continual revision as technology changes. That is certainly the case for death pronounced on the basis of absent "vital signs" today, which is not real death at all.

The object of cryonics is to prevent death by preserving sufficient cell structure and chemistry so that recovery (including recovery of memory and personality) remains possible by foreseeable technology. If indeed cryonics patients are recoverable in the future, then clearly they were never really dead in the first place. Today’s physicians will simply have been wrong about when death occurs, as they have been so many times in the past. The argument that cryonics cannot work because cryonics patients are dead is a circular argument."



I agree that this a circular argument, but also that patients are legally dead per our current legal standards, yet they are not information dead, or 'real dead'--and may be fully alive again in the future. I make this point with my children, and with others. They will then have been considered dead, like some people are now who come back from death ( I have and hope to again ;) )--

In the following story a National Geographic Special "I Came Back From the Dead" is mentioned, I have it set to record and will be watching it tonight :) But our culture can handle those words, and it can help cryonics.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4179894


Resuscitation Science: Is There a Third State of Being?
Doctors Learning More About Bringing People Back From Clinical Death
By BOB BROWN
Jan. 25, 2008


They call it resuscitation science. It's a new area of research at the University of Pennsylvania, where a Center for Resuscitation Science opened less than a year ago, and where the line between life and death is shifting.

Historically, doctors have defined clinical death as the point at which either the heart irreversibly stops beating or the brain shows no signs of activity according to Dr. Benjamin Abella, the center's clinical research director.

"But researchers & now believe there's a third state of being that hovers somewhere between life and death -- a place where most of the body's cells are still alive, but neither of these two classical signs of life are present," Dr. Abella said.

How can medicine bring patients back from that state without causing irreversible damage to the cells?

Watch the story on the National Geographic Channel special "I Came Back From the Dead," at 10 p.m. ET Tuesday, Jan. 29

"It used to be thought that getting someone back as quickly as possible with CPR, defibrillation and warming & was the best approach," said Dr. Abella. "Where that may in part be true, many initial survivors from cardiac arrest go on to suffer severe debilitating brain injury and sometimes don't live to leave the hospital alive."

Restarting the heart while protecting the brain is where the key to successful resuscitation lies. It is dramatically demonstrated in the National Geographic Channel documentary "I Came Back from the Dead," airing Jan. 29.

Through a cooperative arrangement with the National Geographic Channel, ABC News has looked into two of the cases featured in the documentary, studying how the lessons learned from them have contributed to the knowledge of how people can be brought back from clinical death.


'He Looked Like a Cadaver' Ward Krenz, now of Sioux Falls, S.D., survived after being submerged for an hour in an icy lake.

"He certainly came back from the appearance of death from all the clinical criteria for death," said cardiovascular surgeon Dr. Dan Waters of Clear Lake, Iowa. "I don't think it's a big stretch to say he came back from the dead."

Today Krenz is active and healthy and works for a railway company in Sioux Falls. In 1993, he was presumed dead when his body was pulled from a frozen lake he fell into after his snowmobile careered onto an open patch of water in Clear Lake.

"That's when you are in panic mode," Krenz said. His companions heard him cry for help but were unable to reach him.

Krenz treaded water. "I believe it was for about five to 10 minutes," he said.

Then Krenz lost consciousness and slipped beneath the surface. Rescuers discovered his body, with only the helmet still floating above the surface, roughly an hour after the accident. His father was told his sonhad died.

"So on his way to the hospital," said Krenz, "for three hours he was planning my funeral."

"When [Krenz] came to the emergency room he looked like a cadaver," Waters said. "He was stiff, ice-blue, horribly cold to the touch, and he just looked like somebody who had been dead for a long time."

Krenz had flat-lined.

Nevertheless, an estimated two hours after he plunged through the hole in the ice, he was hooked up to a heart-lung machine. Doctors were able to restore a heartbeat, but the prospects, if he survived, were troubling.

"There was at least, I thought, a statistically significant chance we would not get the person he was before back," Waters said. "That he would suffer severe, irreversible brain damage, and still & persist in a vegetative state. So that was my biggest concern."

But in the icy lake, Krenz's body had reacted with incredible, evolutionary defenses: capillaries constricted, sending blood to his vital organs, which needed the oxygen, and away from the skin to reduce heat loss. Had he been warmed too quickly before being placed on the heart-lung machine it could have been the worst thing for him.

According to Abella, research shows that cooling a patient, as Ward Krenz was cooled by the lake, can also slow the clock that counts the seconds of remaining life.

"Hypothermia, or keeping someone cool, seems to add minutes to that clock," Abella said. "So it seems we can push back that envelope and actually affect the transition point between life and death."

In addition, Krenz's lungs never flooded with water because the shock of the cold caused a spasm that closed his windpipe.

The cold also protected his brain.

"He was fully immersed," said Waters. "So not only did his body cool evenly, but his head was underwater and his brain actually was physically cooled by the water as well."

"It turns out when you lower the core body temperature, you slow metabolism," Abella said. "And it seems to have protective effects on the brain, the heart and other organs."

The cold may have been lethal but it also saved Krenz. A sudden warming and uncontrolled return of blood flow to his body could have damaged or killed him. Researchers are now working on understanding why. It's the type of case that has changed conventional thinking about how to revive patients from clinical death.

"When the heart is stopped, that's clearly a bad thing," said Abella. "But when we get blood flow back, a whole new set of injuries kick in at that very moment."

That damage appears to be slowed and lessened by hypothermia.

"I've cared for many patients after cardiac arrest who I thought would never leave the hospital, and I thought would be brain damaged," Abella said. "And what I've seen is that hypothermia brings them back."


First Death, Then Surgery

As the science of resuscitating people advances, it also means that surgeries can be attempted on some conditions that would otherwise be untreatable -- first by killing the patient; then by bringing the patient back. That was what was necessary to operate on a painful and potentially fatal aneurysm in the brain of Atlanta musician Pam Reynolds.

"It was difficult to eat, it was difficult to sleep," said Reynolds. "And it's the kind of pain that no medication helps."

Reynolds went to Phoenix neurosurgeon Robert Spetzler.

"When an aneurysm blows, half the patients die," said Spetzler. "And those that survive, half of them never return to being normal. So it's a real, real threat."

To remove that threat, Reynolds had to be placed in a state of clinical death. Her body was cooled by a heart-lung machine until her heart was at a standstill; then it was stopped completely by an injection of potassium chloride, the same chemical used in death row executions.


Spetzler and his team repaired the aneurysm. During her clinical death, Reynolds experienced something that is reported by around 20 percent of cardiac arrest victims -- a phenomenon commonly termed a near-death experience. She had the sensation of having watched her surgery from above the table, and what surprised her doctors was that she could recount specific details of the operation, including parts of the operating room conversation.

"I heard a female voice say, 'We have a problem, her arteries are too small,'" Reynolds said.

The conversation and other details she recounted were in the surgical records.

Dr. Karl Greene, who was on the team of surgeons, asked, "Why would she have this kind of information if she was so deeply under a barbiturate infusion of medications that should be shutting down her brain?"

In the absence of facts, some partial theories have been proposed. The body may have a self-defense mechanism that produces endorphins to create a sense of well-being in anticipation of death. Because cells never stop working all at once, Reynolds' brain might have continued to function after it had flat-lined, absorbing or envisioning details. Reynolds, however, believes it was a distinct memory.

"It was just too in the pocket to make it up," she said.

"Whether that image came from somewhere else that she then internalized somehow, I don't think there is any way to tell," said Spetzler. "But it was sort of intriguing how well she described what she shouldn't have been able to see."

As the science of resuscitation improves and tackles unanswered questions, doctors are not only redefining what we mean by the term "clinical death," they are re-engineering the ways they can resuscitate those who have experienced it.

"I don't think you want to live at those limits, but at least you know that there is maybe a little maneuvering room out there," Waters said.

#96 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125 â‚®

Posted 29 January 2008 - 10:29 PM

"The object of cryonics is to prevent death by preserving sufficient cell structure and chemistry so that recovery (including recovery of memory and personality) remains possible by foreseeable technology. If indeed cryonics patients are recoverable in the future, then clearly they were never really dead in the first place. Today’s physicians will simply have been wrong about when death occurs, as they have been so many times in the past. The argument that cryonics cannot work because cryonics patients are dead is a circular argument."

I agree that this a circular argument, but also that patients are legally dead per our current legal standards, yet they are not information dead, or 'real dead'--and may be fully alive again in the future. I make this point with my children, and with others.

Glad to hear it. I am not denying that cryonics patients are clinically dead or legally dead. I'm just saying that there is such a thing as being really dead (as defined by information theoretic death), and that kind of death is what cryonics tries to prevent. Clinical death or legal death are not sufficient conditions for being really dead.

What I'm trying to persuade you of is that when you mean legal death or clinical death, it is important to say legal death or clinical death, not just death. The qualifying adjectives can't be left out. If you leave out qualifying adjectives, the adjective "real" is implied. Consider the differential impact of telling a family, "Uncle Joe is clinically dead" vs. "Uncle Joe is dead." The reaction to one will be, "Omigosh, can they help him?" while the reaction to the other will be devastation. Irreversibility is implied whenever someone is called plain and simple dead. In other words, our culture understands death (without qualifying adjectives) to mean what we call information theoretic death. That's because 99% of the time the word is used, it's used to refer to someone who is never coming back. If you mean a kind of death other than information theoretic death, you've got to use the qualifying adjectives. In addition to communicating more clearly, consistent use of qualifying adjectives also opens the opportunity to explain the difference between those kinds of death versus being really dead (never, ever coming back).

There is another dimension to all this that relates to terror management theory. With or without qualifying adjectives, "death" and "dead" are psychological hot button words. They take the mind to places it would rather not be. Every use of the word "dead" in a conversation is like kicking someone in the side. Medicine has long recognized this. So do journalists. A journalist, or physician seeking media attention, will call a patient in circulatory arrest "clinically dead" or even just "dead" because it is shocking to do so! But such terminology is not used in everyday medical practice to describe patients who are still recoverable. No physician would ever tell a family that their loved one will be "dead" during a circ arrest surgery. Hospitals even have euphemisms to describe ordinary deaths on wards. They say things like RHC (respirations have ceased) to avoid the psychological impact of the "D" word. Just as in medicine, the best descriptions of cryonics are those that make the fewest references to death that are required to get the basic idea across. Once psychological terror management responses are activated, reason goes out the window.

They will then have been considered dead, like some people are now who come back from death ( I have and hope to again ;) )--

You mean like people who came back from *apparent* death, which should never be confused with being really dead.

#97 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0 â‚®
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 29 January 2008 - 10:46 PM

Brian,

speaking of cryonics, how's the vitrification feild moving along?

last I heard there was a gallbladderof a small animal vitrified with no ice crystal damage.

I'll PM you if you want about my absurd layman questions ;)

#98 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702 â‚®
  • Location:Boston, MA
  • âś”

Posted 29 January 2008 - 11:38 PM

Well, we both agree on the basics of this argument. I know that death is a scary word, especially for children when they first realized what it 'is'. Since they know they can die, to a point where a hospital can not keep them alive, it is comforting to think that cryonics can preserve them to a time when are advanced enough to fix them.

What we call the preserved patients--is an ongoing conversation for sure, but yes for when I 'died' I had stopped breathing first, then my heart stopped--they were able to get it going again. It was not 'legal death' or my parents would have gotten my life insurance etc, and I wouldn't be around to be a cryonicist today ;). In my interactions with people I will will continue to use 'legal death' or 'clinical death' when talking about cryonics patients (and they are always patients)-- but not 'all the way dead' or 'full information loss'. In fact I was talking with my kids a few days ago about how cryonicists are alive--their cells, and if you thawed them right now many cells would be alive--but we don't have the ability to fix what killed them, or repair any freezing damage, the person would decay and all their information would be lost. The beauty of cryonics is that the patients are kept in a live state, for decades or hundreds of years--until humans have the ability to re-animate them, heal them, rejuvenate them.

I've heard good things about the vitrification field, and always look forward to hearing new advancements. This is where the view of cryonics will be changed the most. :)

#99 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125 â‚®

Posted 30 January 2008 - 07:50 PM

Thanks, Shannon.

Karomesis, I've heard of blood vessels, cartilage, corneas, ovaries and kidneys (n=1) successfully vitrified, but not gall bladders as far as I'm aware.

As to what's new, while progress continues in labs, there have not been especially notable publications lately. An interesting unpublished result is the recent finding that brain slices retain the ability to show an LTP (long-term potentiation) response after cryopreservation by vitrification. LTP is believed to be an important mechanism in the formation of long-term memories.

#100 AaronCW

  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1 â‚®
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 07 February 2008 - 06:55 AM

A cryonics patient can be considered 'potential' life, but not in the same way as unborn potential life. Unborn potential life has never been anything more than potential human life, and as such has no rights, whereas the potential life found in a cryonics facility is (or should be) protected under a contract between the patient and the cryonics company. Someday cryonics patients could be legally protected as human life, but I don't see this happening until the procedure has been perfected and demonstrated.

Regardless, given the current state of technology I would save the young girl from a certain horrible death instead of preserving the possibility of 100 cryonics patients being revived someday.

#101 Eternal Life

  • Guest
  • 62 posts
  • 5 â‚®
  • Location:HK/UK

Posted 07 February 2008 - 11:05 AM

Well morally, i would force myself to save the orphan as he or she can be regared as a lving life. Whereas the 100 cyyonic patients.... I think as they were physically
and leagally classified as deads so it may seems to me that it is not as "wrothy"(relatively to the orphan" to save them... Moreover how can you garantee that these
patient would become "living" again in the furture? P.S. Though I support cryonics as the last source of reaching physical immortality. ^o^ Finally i would like to say a person's valve
does not depend on his or her background but his contribution to the world.

#102 drus

  • Guest
  • 278 posts
  • 20 â‚®
  • Location:?

Posted 07 February 2008 - 06:49 PM

I've always thought of people in cryo-stasis as 'people on pause'. But to answer the question posed, I would save the cryonicists first and then hurry as fast as I could to retrieve the child, and then have him/her placed into stasis as well.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users