X-Message-Number: 29288
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:27:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: The ethics of last-minute cases
References: <>

Keith Henson raises the very worthwhile topic of last minute
cases. No organization has ever set out specifically to find
and encourage such cases. It is interesting to consider the
consequences of embarking on such a policy.

My own personal guidelines have been:

--Do not accept a case without guaranteed funding in place.
--Do not accept a case where informed consent is unavailable.
--Do not accept a case where hostile relatives may exist.
--Be cautious of any case where those involved may have
unclear or unrealistic ideas about cryonics.

Interestingly, the Ted Williams case seemed to violate all of
the first three conditions. (The oil-stained "consent note"
was not made available until after the case was completed.)

"Informed consent" is controversial, since if the patient is
comatose, already dead, or otherwise impaired, the next of
kin can legally give consent for cryopreservation on behalf
of the patient. But is this really acceptable in the case of
cryonics? I got into an argument with some CI directors over
this, because they felt a moral imperative to "save a life"
regardless of whether the patient even knew about cryonics,
while I felt that no one has a right to impose an
experimental medical procedure on a patient who has not given
consent.

Last-minute cases inevitably entail lack of information about
the patient and relatives, money problems, and (very often)
unrealistic perceptions of cryonics. On the other hand, in
the past, last-minute cases have been a source of members,
since additional people in the family have often signed up
after their loved one has been cryopreserved.

The PR risk of last-minute cases is that the cryonics
organization may be seen as preying upon people who are in a
vulnerable emotional state. No matter how many warnings you
may give about the experimental nature of cryonics and the
uncertain outcome, the organization can be portrayed as being
no better than a bunch of "ambulance chasers" (or "hearse
chasers").

One way to circumvent some of these problems would be by
splitting off the case work to an independent organization,
as was done with CryoCare and its service provider,
BioPreservation, and could conceivably be done with Suspended
Animation.

Currently, as I understand it, Alcor is very reluctant to
take last minute cases while CI is very happy to take them.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe Kennita Watson can redirect her zeal to the challenging
task of promoting cryonics to elderly people in nursing
homes. Of course this would be less fun than hanging out in
Colorado, chatting with tourists.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29288