X-Message-Number: 15498 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:53:52 -0500 From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <> Subject: A Few Comments from the 2nd Row, re. Mr Ettinger #15485 I have sat silently skimming the exchanges over the past week+ and find the need to make a few comments here. >Message #15485 >From: >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:06:25 EST >Subject: more Grimes [snip] >2. When he asked for the delay times for the last four CI patients, I only >responded with information about the last three, because that was what I >remembered clearly. (Two died at home under hospice care and were processed >immediately; one was not found for more than a day.) If that isn't enough, >tough. I can write fast, but I can't access archives fast, and I will not go >to endless trouble at his behest, especially when he has gone out of his way >to be obnoxious. A simple answer of how many hours/minutes it took from death to LN temperature at CI *should* be available from CI. If a hospice nurse or nursing aide was present at the home of the patients, it would be the practice to note the time of death and make it available for the physician, coroner's office, mortician, and/or CI. Again the time should have been noted by the mortician re. when procedures are begun and completed on the patient. The start and stop time for procedures at CI should also have been recorded and be available. If these times are/have not been recorded, then admit it and correct the practice. As a former Registered Nurse and former Mechanical Engineer, I know the value of precise record keeping for the health and safety of patients and success of complex space-borne electronic communications hardware. >3. He writes: >> I have no idea why Mr. Ettinger finds it "incredible" that some people >>might be >revived, while others are not. Has he heard of the principle of >>triage (used in every >emergency room)? His incredulity just confirms my >>previous statement: That he >seems to feel he "deserves" to be revived. >And I repeat, he shows an incredible lack of understanding of cryonics and >cryonics organizations. Triage has nothing to do with it, and "deserve" has >nothing to do with it. Mr. Grimes' reference to "triage" in regard to future decisions on who will be revised by nanotechnology techniques reminded me of my first nursing position in a very busy ER in a Newark NJ suburb. While the riots of 1967 did not present us with the most severe cases actually possible, we knew that we might have to withhold personnel and techniques from some who were just not salvageable given our resources and the circumstances. It seems to me that there will be a practice in the resuscitation future to use the then current techniques on the most recently or best preserved deceased first. This *is* a "triage" of sorts since the longer time in storage the more risk that they will never be resuscitated. >We want to save our lives and those of the people we >love, and the organization has the legal and moral obligation to do its best >to that end, and that is the whole of it. I can only add that so do I and Paul (and I presume Mr Grimes) want to save our lives and those whom we love. We personally are constantly researching and practicing the best scientifically based life extension methods. Cryonics is our back up in case we do not live to the point in time where rejuvenation techniques are discovered, proven and available. I want a cryonics organization based solidly on science that I can verify and with a financial footing that is sound. From Mr Grimes' questions/comments, it sounds like he is searching for the same. I can't help wondering how many lurkers have wondered similarly. [snip] >5. He writes: >> I have just asked questions, not so different from questions which a >> patient would >ask of a doctor, if the patient was facing a medical procedure. >Stuff and nonsense. Patients rarely ask doctors about technical details, only >things like will it hurt and how long will it take and what will it cost and >how long will I be laid up and what are my chances--especially the last, if >the situation is life-threatening. It is the RESULTS that count, and our >results have been evaluated by independent professionals. While as a former RN, I am not the typical patient and therefore my very specific questions of my orthopedic surgeon last October in Scottsdale re. impending shoulder surgery may have been more than usual, I have witnessed many patients and family querying physcians, nurses, physical therapists, etc. for extensive details. The details required the use of x-rays, photographs, diagrams, copied articles, viewing of equipment, and lengthy verbal explanations to satisfy patients and/or family. Yes, some patients want to know nothing - and similarly their families - but this is no reason as an organization to gear one's information for the lowest common denonminator. I made it a practice in all areas of nursing in which I worked after graduation (which was all but the OR & RR) to provide the patient and family with all the information they asked for or indicated they wanted to know, always starting with a truthful simple baseline. Personally, if a medical provider is not just willing but eager to share all the information on a subject I seek, I am leery of their knowledge, integrity or both. (I have a urologist in AZ who is always a pleasure on the rare visits I've made over the past 10 years because he quickly drags out journals to share the latest findings, offering to let me use his copier if I desire. I can overhear him address his other patients in much the same manner. This desire to have an informed patient is refreshing.) [snip] >10. He writes: >> [I want] SHORT SIMPLE ANSWERS TO SHORT SIMPLE QUESTIONS >Baloney. Every answer to him will only elicit argumentation and demands for >more and more details. One purpose of our web site is to allow inquirers to >find what they need without separate individual correspondence. >We do indeed welcome questions and suggestions. But we respond as seems >appropriate, using our own judgment, not necessarily as the writer demands. >In the course of the go-rounds of the last month or so, in a very few cases >it has been shown that some of our web segments led to misunderstandings. >These have been changed, or are in the process. Also, as I said, new segments >are upcoming. We will always correct any errors that can be demonstrated, and >we will remedy any inadequacies, according to our best judgment. On the >whole, I think most readers will agree that our site is the most open and >informative of all. I will say that when I was new to cryonics some 6 years ago, I found much of value on the CI website to inform me in general on the subject. I am glad to hear the expressed intention to correct any errors - and I hope deficiencies - in a medium that has the ability to be seen and judged by so many around the globe. While Mr Grimes has been very polite, in my opinion, he has been very persistent in his attempt to get clear specific answers. Maybe this is what is so heavily disliked by Mr Ettinger, Mr Pascal, Mr de Rivas, and Mr Smith. Occassionally over the past 2 years that I've subscribed to CryoNet, I have seen others who have asked touchy questions or raised controversial issues but were in turn been greeted by less than straightforward answers. These were sometimes newcomers and were never heard from again - maybe they still lurk. I am glad to see Mr Grimes "sticking it out" and hope that others who have questions - or would like to make a comment - will do so without the fear that they will be subjected to the sometimes demeaning output of the 4 gentlemen mentioned above. **Kitty More Life to Us All Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15498