X-Message-Number: 12404 From: "John de Rivaz" <> Subject: Re: Religious Authority and Cryonics Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 15:24:47 +0100 Thanks, Ivan, for continuing this discussion. Your point: > This is the crux of the matter - can a technique that may have the > potential to benefit an individual take precedence of one that is of > proven benefit to society. is the crucial one. To understand this, it needs to be applied to the whole of medicine. If we apply it to the whole of medicine, surely this conclusion can be drawn: It is easy to make new people, and not that expensive to educate them compared to the cost of elaborate medical procedures such as transplant surgery and aftercare (often on expensive drugs for life). Therefore isn't the use of such surgical techniques, in the UK paid for by the country as a whole rather than the individual concerned, benefiting the individual at the expense of the collective? We observe that such expensive transplant techniques are regarded as a proper use of collective money. I don't think anyone would get very far suggesting that people that badly sick should be executed to save the country money. In the radio play "Bomber" (based upon interviews with people who experienced the war) the German medical experiments on seeing how long airmen could survive in frozen water was regarded as unacceptable by some Germans who found out about it even though it may save German airmen's lives. Yet this is denying the subjects of these experiments their lives by applying a technique to them to benefit the society as a whole. [Please note that the reference to WW2 is not supposed to be name calling but a genuine attempt to understand the issues.] Therefore I suggest that we will eventually observe that cryopreservation, for those few who want it, will be permitted by law and not deliberately thwarted on just the same moral grounds. Cryonics people are not asking the state to spend money on them - they are prepared to use their own savings they may otherwise have spent on fast cars or holidays - they just asked not to be killed when too sick for modern medicine to help them. Instead they want a trip on a "time ambulance" to where they can be cured. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, my singles club for people in Cornwall, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other projects: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR Ivan Robinson <> wrote in message news:7rd1ft$3qd$ > Dear Jeffrey > > Thanks for your recent posting, My comments are interpolated > > > Well, of course I would prefer that you abide by the wishes of cryonicists > > to have their brains cooled and frozen as rapidly as possible rather than > > dissected. You don't lose much information by this, and it may turn out > > to be the difference between life and death to the cryonicists. > > As yet this issue has not arisen in my UK practice - possibly it may in the > next few years as Europe is strongly influenced, for better and worse, by US > activities. In the UK the coroner can direct any doctor to perform an > autopsy. To prevent brain dissection you need to change legislation and > redraft the coroner's act. > > > Remember that it is perfectly possible that cryogenic preservation, as > > practised _now_, may eventually allow reanimation. A cryonicist > > dying now doesn't have the option of waiting for further developments > > in the technologies that may eventually allow reanimation in order to > > demonstrate them to you. > > > This is the crux of the matter - can a technique that may have the potential > to benefit an individual take precedence of one that is of proven benefit to > society. I am a histopathologist and not a moralist, legislator, ethicist, > philosopher or cryogeneticist and obviously my thoughts are strongly > influenced by my perceived worth in society. > > > I see the value of autopsy, but I doubt that you would lose much > > important information if everyone who objected to it for any reason > > was always excluded. Even if that lead to exclusion of half the > > population, you would still get plenty of data points for all but the > > rarest of illnesses. For "the modern plagues", surely there are > > plenty of cases where the patient hasn't explicitly objected to > > autopsy? > > This may be true if each individual didn't have a unique response to their > disease, the hospital consent autopsy rate not plummeting and coroner's > autopsies allowed material research and education > > > Regards > > Ivan > > > > > Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12404