X-Message-Number: 2781
From: whscad1!kqb (Kevin Q Brown +1 201 386 7344)
Subject: CRYONICS Assisted Suicide

Even under ideal conditions we do not know for certain that today's
cryonics technology really preserves our memory and personality.
Worse, that is only one of the major problems we face.  Another major
problem with cryonics _practice_ today is that human cryopreservations
cannot be scheduled like normal operations.  Instead, when the
suspension organization gets informed that a member is going down,
it immediately has to confront a number of logistically difficult
problems getting the transport team, meds, equipment, transportation,
hospital and related organizations, etc. lined up.  If this isn't
done perfectly (or nearly so), then the patient suffers a prolonged
period of ischemia and receives a less than optimal cryopreservation.

On the other hand, if a "right-to-die" law allowed assisted suicides
in clearly terminal situations, where there is no quality of life
remaining or any prospect of recovery, much of those emergency medicine
problems could be avoided.  Of course, cryonicists don't really want
to die, but since the law cannot distinguish a dead person from a
cryopreserved person, legal support for right-to-die may be exactly
what is needed to avoid dying!

Another case where legalized assisted suicides could help is where
one is suffering from a brain tumor that slowly destroys one's memory
and personality.  In this case the _person_ may be long gone before
the body dies.  The only hope for such a person is to arrange for a
cryosuspension before degeneration reaches that stage.

The law may be changing to allow assisted suicides. The May 1994
issue of Venturist Monthly News reports on a May 5 newspaper
article concerning a recent decision in Washington state:
  "Judge Barbara Rothstein of U.S. District Court in Seattle
  said the state's 140-year-old ban on assisted suicide violated
  the U.S. constitution, specifically the 14th amendment clause
  guaranteeing individual freedom from unwarranted state
  interference."
This case was supported by a group called "Compassion in Dying,"
which, like the Hemlock Society, is a right-to-die advocacy group.
The decision does not directly apply to cases outside the jurisdiction
of that District Court, but, if I understand correctly, it nevertheless
could influence outside cases.

                              Kevin Q. Brown
                              INTERNET    
                                 or       

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2781