X-Message-Number: 1724
From:  (Ralph Merkle)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: sci.med
Message-ID: <>
Date: 8 Feb 93 20:47:40 GMT

The following item was posted to "sci.med"

Newsgroups: sci.med
Path: parc!merkle
From:  (Ralph Merkle)
> Subject: Re: Cryonics Article Published in Medical Hypotheses
Message-ID: <>
Sender: 
Organization: Xerox PARC
References: <> <>
Date:  7 Feb 93 18:15:57 GMT


 (Gordon Banks) writes:


>In article <>  (Ralph Merkle) 
writes:

>>Sci.cryonics has been established and carries discussions of
>>various issues that arise or might arise in cryonics.
>>
>It's been months since I've seen anything in sci.cryonics other
>than repeat postings of FAQs by one person.  Verifies my theory
>that the interest in cryonics is pretty limited.
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
>   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, Gordon!  I see you're still making grossly innaccurate statements
about cryonics!  There have been over 700 messages on sci.cryonics and
the recent traffic (since January 28) includes a discussion about how
to reduce fracturing by the admixture of polymers into the perfusate,
the deterioration that occurs when storage temperatures are above about
-80 degrees centigrade, the possibility of disrupting ice crystal formation
by some means, a query about the status of cryonics in Russia, a request
for the reposting of the FAQ, the FAQ itself, and some other stuff.

And, of course, if you want more volume (something all readers of newsgroups
deeply desire) you can subscribe to Kevin Brown's cryonics mailing
list.

For those who haven't noticed from his previous postings, Gordon Banks
is remarkably incapable of rational thought about cryonics.  This
inability seems confined to cryonics, for I've been told that his
contributions in other areas are quite reasonable.  This curious pattern
of behavior is not unique, and so it is perhaps worthwhile to investigate
it more closely.

As a simple probe, we can use the following merely tautological set of
assertions.  Gordon has previously said he disagrees with this tautology,
a disagreement that I found (and find) somewhat incredible.

Here's the tautology:

1.)  The definition of "death," (from Dorland's Medical Dictionary,
     26th edition) is "the cessation of life; permanent cessation
     of all vital bodily functions."
2.)  "Kill" means to cause a person's death, e.g., to cause
     a permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions.
3.)  If cryonic suspension works, then it does not cause
     a permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions (this is
     the definition of "works").
4.)  If you block a cryonic suspension then you have caused
     a person to be buried or cremated, with a resulting
     permanent cessation of vital bodily functions.  Had you not
     blocked the suspension, then the person would have
     been cryonically suspended.  By item (3) above, if
     cryonics works this would not have caused a permanent
     cessation of vital bodily function.
5.)  Therefore, if cryonics works and you block a cryonic suspension,
     you have killed a person.

Please note that the sequence of statements (1) through (5) makes no
claim that cryonics does or does not work.  The claim being advanced
is merely that -if- cryonics works -then- blocking a cryonic suspension
kills someone.  This follows rather directly from the relevant
definitions.

The logical structure is not altered by the specific method of
saving a life.  You can replace "cryonic suspension" with (say)
"blood transfusion," "antibiotics" or your favorite life-saving
procedure and preserve the truth or falsity of the statement.

Gordon's response to this tautology (after several exchanges to
make sure he understood it) was:

>I maintain my position.  It is the disease that kills you, not
>the blocking of the suspension.  Your life is already over.
>You may argue you have a right to live again, after successful
>revival, but this is open to debate.  It might be someone else's
>turn.
>Death need not be defined as permanent cession of function.

Fascinating!  Gordon questions that a dying patient has the right to a
life-saving treatment!  To avoid the rather obvious ethical problem
("Thou Shalt Not Kill") he then attempts to redefine "death!"
Note that the argument is not about the "right to live again"
(as Gordon carefully mis-states it) for by definition, if cryonics
works and I am frozen, then I have not died.  The argument is the
age old one about the right to live.  Gordon argues that the right
to life is "open to debate."  A curious stance for a physician to take!

Seriously, the reason for exhibiting this anti-Hippocratic logic on the
part of an otherwise sensible physician is to illustrate exactly how
deeply rooted the prejudice against cryonics can sometimes run.  If Gordon
is unable to follow a simple logical sequence through to its conclusion,
how badly will he distort other factual points?  This is a serious problem,
for there are other self-styled "experts" on cryonics whose primary
qualification is a deeply seated emotional hatred of the subject.  They
will maintain, often with great passion, that they know that cryonics
won't work.

There are various logical fallacies which can be exploited by those who
wish to argue against cryonics.

To begin with, evaluating the feasibility of cryonics is a unique
problem.  The accepted method of evaluating any new proposal for saving
lives is to try it.  This is usually called "conducting clinical trials."

For cryonics, the appropriate clinical trials are
  (1) Select N subjects.
  (2) Freeze them.
  (3) Wait 100+ years
  (4) See if the medical technology of 2100 or later can indeed revive them.

A fairly frequent argument against cryonics boils down to the observation
that the clinical trials have not been completed.  This problem, however,
is inherent in the very nature of the proposal.  Because cryonics proposes
to use medical technology that has not yet been developed and indeed
will not be developed for at least decades if not centuries, it is quite
impossible to complete the clinical trials in any kind of timely fashion.
We must wait for decades or centuries before the clinical trials can
possibly be considered complete.  This kind of problem is not unique
to cryonics: it occurs whenever a new treatement is proposed, clinical
trials are started, and a terminally ill patient requests the
treatment prior to their completion.  What do you tell them?
Cryonics does, however, pose this problem in a uniquely severe form.
We are forced, like it or not, to base our evaluation on criteria other
than clinical trials because it is simply not possible to get the
results of the clinical trial in anything like a timely fashion.

It is quite literally the case that the clinical trials to evaluate
the effectiveness of cryonics are being conducted as you read this.
Results will be available in perhaps a century.

The choice currently available is to (a) become a member of the experimental
group and be frozen or (b) become a member of the control group and be
buried or cremated.

Given the currently available information about the outcomes, I think
being in the experimental group is a more attractive option.....

In the meantime, it needs to be emphasized very strongly that knowledge of
current medical technologies and current medical practice is completely
inadequate in forecasting the success or failure of the clinical trials.
Gordon maintains that the clinical trials will likely fail.  Unfortunately,
he bases this on his expertise in current medical technology.  The relevant
technology, however, is the medical technology that will be available in
100 to 200 years.  Any attempt to forecast the outcome of the clinical trials
must be based on forecasts of future medical technology.  Consider, for
example, the plight of a physician in 1793 attempting to forecast the medical
technology of 1993.

Medical school teaches how to apply today's technology to today's patient.  It
does not teach, nor even consider, what medical technology in 200 years might
be like.

So, at least three factors can contribute to many self-styled "experts"
incorrect certainty that cryonics won't work:

1.)  The clinical trials to evaluate cryonics require, by definition,
     much longer to complete than the clinical trials for any other
     proposal.
2.)  Use of an experimental treatment is usually considered "risky," but
     in the case of cryonics this risk is absent; hence the knee-jerk response
     that "we must avoid risk by waiting until completion of the clinical
     trials" is inappropriate.
3.)  Even a good understanding of current medical procedures and practice
     is largely irrelevant in evaluating what will be feasible in 100 to 200
     years.  It is in my opinion unlikely that current medical technology
     or any modest evolutionary extension of current medical technology will
     be able to revive a patient frozen with today's technology.  However,
     there is every reason to believe that entirely revolutionary advances
     in medical technology will be made during the next century or two.
     The reasons for expecting revolutionary advances in our medical technology
     do not come from medicine, but from other areas entirely.  Expertise
     in current medical technology is of limited value in forecasting such
     future capabilities.  Indeed, to the extent that today's medical experts
     fall prey to the delusion that what they have studied is the limit of what
     is possible, they will systematically and with erroneous confidence
     predict failure.  The reader is again invited to imagine a physician
     of 1793 trying to cope with (say) open heart surgery....

These misunderstandings are, of course, superimposed on whatever emotional
biases might be present.  As illustrated by Gordon, the impact of such
emotional biases can be severe.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1724