X-Message-Number: 29285
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:59:37 -0800 (PST)
From: 2Arcturus <>
Subject: Re: [CN] reanimation

--0-303861729-1173466777=:20340

>>>Message #29281
From: Gareth Nelson <>
Subject: 
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:22:37 +0000
References: <>

  >>>Surely NOT reanimating someone once the capability exists and funding 
etc are available would be a violation of the hippocratic oath?
   

  Oh I am sure someone will argue that being -dead-, the patient is beyond harm,
  in a well-agreed upon state. Whereas if you resuscitate the patient, the 
  patient may have amnesia, kidney-damage, and who knows what else (for the 
  first, experimental tries). In that case, conservatives will argue it is 
  better to leave the patient alone (dead, and not in pain) than to create a 
  patient with serious illnesses. I am just arguing devil's advocate here... but
  I am sure some "bioethicist" will echo it.

>>>Brian Wowk often points out that before revival of today's patients is 
possible, mainstream medicine will have been using short-term suspended 
animation for some time. So eventually cryonics patients will come to 
be seen the same as anyone on a form of life support.
   

  I hope so. My nightmare scenario is based on a sudden successful reversal of 
  suspension. Kind of like cloning. One day the leading scientists argued that 
  cloning a mammal was impossible. The next day, after Dolly the Sheep, 
  legislators had their moratorium ready for passing! That is how quickly policy
  can appear/change permanently, and when it comes to 'surprises' I would count
  on policy to be very conservative.



 
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels 
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
--0-303861729-1173466777=:20340

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29285