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