X-Message-Number: 26401 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:12:26 -0400 From: Subject: Re: Cryonics vs. Burial ?!? In #26395, Brian Wowk strongly urges cryonicists not to equate cryopreservation with burial methods. His stated reasons are that doing so is counterproductive, absurd and incomprehensible to the public. Instead, he wants us to tell the public that the patients are not really dead at all, but being stabilized until more advanced medicine can treat them. As this is one of the first things I read this morning after I woke up, I started to wonder if I had awakened in this century, or in some later one when reanimation was already being practiced, the definition of "death" was being relegislated, life insurance could no longer be used to fund cryonics because cryonics patients were no longer considered dead, and the law and medical ethics permitted the "suspension" at below freezing temperatures of persons still considered alive, which procedure had become a part of the ordinary medical insurance policy. After confirming it was still 2005, I began puzzling over just what Brian was trying to say. Is he saying we should stop the practice of using life insurance funding, since these folks are not really dead? Is he saying that we should not get death certificates signed, because these people are not dead? In what legal jurisdiction can a cryonics organization administer toxic chemicals and suspension procedures at below freezing temperatures to someone not considered dead, and the practitioners not be put in jail, the bodies thawed and autopsied? The obvious answer is no, we should not go that far. But if Brian is right in saying "Describing cryonics as an alternative interment method for dead bodies makes cryonics utterly incomprehensible to the worldview of normal human beings," it is a stretch to think those same human beings will comprehend anything about how we consider these bodies "alive" after we have obtained death certificates and accepted life insurance payments. So if we don't go that far, and do get a death certificate, and do use life insurance funding, what is wrong with also taking advantage of another benefit that accompanies the status of "deceased", namely, the legal ability to consider cryopreservation simply another method of disposition of a dead body? It is upfront different from other methods -- we make no secret of telling people that their frozen/vitrified friend/relative may be reanimated some time in the future when it is possible, and practical, to do so. Cryopreservation is not thereby being equated with burial or cremation. But it does have some important benefits. For one thing, it provides psychological and emotional closure to non-cryonicist friends and relatives, if the proper memorial services and such are provided. It can also have certain legal benefits, such as in jurisdictions where cryonics is considered legal as a funeral procedure. There is a danger, too, in diminishing the idea of death in regards to a cryopreserved patient. People and the courts are not yet ready for this redefinition. "Being brought back to life" is a much more palatable concept. We as cryonicists can think whatever we want about it, but until reanimation is practiced and everybody therefore knows these people were not really dead, most people are not going to accept the idea and a good many do not even want to hear of it. In fact, if cryonicists do not present what they do in terms most people can understand, we will continue to have legal and public relations difficulties. Brian's whole premise seems to be a misconception that the general public at this time in history will embrace "the true motives and goals of cryonics." Not so, I'm afraid. Instead, I have been seeing more evidence of things like attempts to pass legislation that would make it nearly impossible for a cryonics organization to operate, newspaper and magazine articles ridiculing cryonics, etc. I fear that if we try to push too hard onto the public the fact that our cryopreserved patients may indeed still be alive under a future definition of the term "death," we risk a backwash of confusion and anger from those who cannot handle the uncertainty of their deceased friend/relative's status, and the threat to the comfortable mindset they have cherished since childhood. This is not to say we shouldn't keep on publicizing cryonics and talking about it to other people. The soft approach is best. When someone is ready for a change in mindset, they will understand the idea and see its possibilities. Until then, they want to hear and think that their loved ones are "at rest." Let them. We don't need billions of cryonicists, at least until there is more than vaporware to offer. Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26401