X-Message-Number: 16500
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:17:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Ramifications of the Decision to Sit This One Out

Thanks to Dave Pizer for the very thoughtful and fascinating anecdote
about his experience mountain climbing, in which the pain of hanging on
became so acute, he was tempted to opt for the relief of letting go--even
though the consequence would have been oblivion.

First, Dave, even though you and I have sometimes had differences, I'm
really glad that you hung on!

Second, your cost-benefit analysis in that moment of crisis sounds like
the cost-benefit analysis of people who choose to kill themselves in a
more premeditated way. The pain of remaining alive may be so intolerable,
death begins to seem a relief by comparison. I have been close to that
point, sometimes. Indeed there have been times when I chose to remain
alive out of pure stubborn rebelliousness. (I should add that this is not
one of those times; I have a fairly idyllic life right now.)

Deathist Lurker Girl questions whether a cryonics organization has the
right to influence or even coerce someone into following through with
cryonics arrangements. Of course I agree that under normal circumstances,
no one should be coerced to do anything. Period. But what if the patient
previously signed documents requesting--in fact, requiring--that the
cryonics organization should freeze the patient under ANY circumstances,
"Even if I tell you I don't want it"?

This is not a far-fetched scenario, for the reasons indicated above.
Someone who is dying slowly, in extreme pain, may have a very different
outlook compared with a time when the same person was young and healthy.
Indeed, a person's outlook may change merely as a result of growing older,
without any pain or suffering. I am more philosophical about death than I
used to be, probably as a result of "natural" biological processes; and
I'm "only" 56.

When my father was 95, I watched him decide that he had had enough of
being alive, and he simply stopped eating until he died, even though he
was in remarkably good health. This was clearly what he wanted, beyond any
possible doubt. Was he wrong?  Should I have tried to intervene? I
possessed power of attorney, and in the relatively relaxed circumstances
of a rather high-class nursing home (really like a luxury hotel) in
England, I'm virtually certain I could have obtained permission to inflict
any preservative processes of my choice. My half-brother, a minister,
might have seen things differently, but I was on the scene, and he wasn't.

I chose to allow my father to "die naturally" and be buried, because that
was what he wanted. But this was not an easy choice. I miss my father and
am appalled by the loss of his intelligence, skills, and memories.

I see no easy answers to any of these questions; and I am deeply
suspicious whenever someone suggests that the answers are easy. I have
been in a situation, once, where I was suffering the most extreme stress
and anxiety, and for reasons I won't mention here, suicide would have been
virtually impossible. The feeling of being _forced_ to go on living under
intolerable circumstances was even more frightening than the circumstances
themselves. (This is one reason I am terrified of some medical scenarios.)
I can imagine that someone might view cryonics is this way--a "punishment"
that would enforce future life. In fact I believe my father saw it that
way. Consequently, it would have been extremely unethical to force it upon
him. It would have been an entirely selfish act, making myself feel better
without any respect for his wishes.

As for my own current status of being not signed up, I agree with David
Pizer that I might be a more convincing evangelist if I committed myself
to an organization. But I am not an evangelist right now; I am a skeptic.

The trouble is, commitment, to me, is not a passive process. I cannot join
and then do nothing. Right now I am certain beyond doubt that neither of
the principal cryonics organizations would want any help from me as a PR
person anyway; and I am so philosophically opposed to their gung-ho
positivist approach to cryonics, I couldn't promote them without feeling
grave ethical misgivings. So I'm sitting out this dance, waiting for a
more suitable partner.  Possibly Kryos, the new company started by Mike
Darwin with E. Shaun Russell, will turn out to be "compatible" with my
outlook on cryonics. I hope so. If I can join Kryos (or obtain its
services through ACS), then my decision will speak for itself, just as my
current decision not to commit to any active organization speaks for
itself.

PS. To Louis Epstein: Why do you find it necessary to reply to so many
messages at such amazing length? Sometimes, more is less.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16500