X-Message-Number: 1049
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:22:32 PDT
From: Lola McCrary <>
Subject: cryonics: Cryonics terminology: for mailing list and newsgroup

  From: Brian Wowk <>
  Message-Subject: cryonics terminology


	  I agree 100% about usage of "deanimate", and for the same reasons.   

  "Deanimate" should be dropped from the cryonics lexicon and replaced by more
    specific terms such as "cardiac arrest" and "biostasis."  For the record, I  

  first expressed my misgivings about "deanimate" in my 1988 essay, "The Death
    of Death of Cryonics" (available from Alcor as a reprint). 

I also agree that jargon should be avoided whenever possible.  There are so
many synonyms for "death" that using a word many perceive as not only a
synonym, but a denial of something they see as "natural" can only be damaging.

	  On the other hand, I disagree that we should continue using the word  
  "death" in the muddled way people usually do...The best way to emphasize this
   is to insist that "death" (with no preceeding adjectives) ONLY be used to
   characterize total obliteration of brain structure.  Continuing medical
   progress will eventually change "death" to mean only this anyway.  It is to
   our advantage to speed this semantic evolution as much as possible. 

	  In reply to Steve Harris' recent postings, my "Death of Death" essay  

  did not suggest that "clinical death" or "legal death" be avoided as terms.
    It simply said that if you want to say "dead" instead of "cardiac arrest",  
  then indeed make sure you say "*clinically* dead." 

I incline towards "legal death", especially since the definition of "clinical
death" does, as pointed out, keep changing.  Also most people are familiar with
the controversy over legal definitions of death (when to cut off life support,
or life sustaining treatment, etc.).  I consider it possible that some who
don't support cryonics will accept what we do as personal choice, and want less
control of that choice in the hands of the government, or legal and medical
establishments. After all, they may eventually want to make a choice that
*they* don't want those groups messing with.  Also, using words with an
accepted meaning in a different way opens up more discussion that defining a
piece of jargon does.

  > I'd also suggest "revive" in place of "reanimate". 


Agreed as well.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1049