X-Message-Number: 32149
References: <>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:10:19 -0800 (PST)
From: 2Arcturus <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32137 - #32140


>>>Message #32140
Subject: Cryonics and organ transplants
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:49:01 -0500

3.  If a), then the patient's organs would be medically unusable for transplant.
We cannot prove (think 100 million dollars or more) to the FDA and various 
medical boards that our particular combination of fluids is "safe and effective"
for living patients.  No transplant team in the United States would accept such

It seems to me kind of a problem that there is such a discrepancy between 
cryonics stabilizing perfusate and the organ preservation solutions used for 
organ harvesting, especially when they are intended to do much the same thing - 
keep the organs in a maximally viable state.

It was my understanding that the Alcor solution is a variation based on a 
standard organ preservation solution - correct me if I am wrong. If the cryonics
solutions are better at preserving viable organs, that out to be demonstrable 
by experiment. If the organ preservation solutions used by organ donation teams 
are  better, as verified by experiment, then why aren't cryonics sp's using them
instead? Unless I am missing something, there shouldn't be a huge contradiction
between the two.

>>>5.  In order for the transplanted organs to be viable, the procedures would 
have to done to hospital standards -- which today and perhaps for decades means 
the procedures would have to be done AT a hospital.

I don't see why a local organ transplant team could not be teamed with Alcor's 
standby teams wherever they go, which I gather is sometimes a hospital or a 
nursing home near a hospital. And why are cryonicists afraid of hospital 

In my opinion, the upside for cryonicists would be that we might get hospital 
buy-in on the urgency of cryonics stabilization - if doctors saw it combined 
with organ harvesting, it would provide more of a context for understanding it 
(just harvesting another organ, except one that will be preserved for the 
original donor not someone else), and also for understanding the urgency of 
stabilizing the patient, instead of seeing cryonics as a bizarre post-mortem 
exercise left to pathologists and funeral home directors.

And as has already been mentioned, it would put cryonicists' intentions in a 
better light.

>>>6.  This would require immense amounts of education and training of both 
hospital and cryotransport personnel so that they would be willing to cooperate,
in order that both the organs for transplant AND the patient's head/brain were 
handled to maximum best effect.

It doesn't seem a bad idea to me that cryonicists might not retain at least one 
licensed surgeon for neuropreservations who could work with organ harvesting 
teams. Such a surgeon trained for cryonic sought already to be retained; and the
organ transplant team optimally would not have to do anything different - just 
share the operating room and follow a protocol that optimized stabilization of 
the brain. It might be that solutions optimized to stabilize the brain might not
be the same as those optimized to stabilize other organs, but it doesn't seem 
obvious to me that they might not also be adequate for those other organs, which
is something cryonics researchers ought to be able to demonstrate, especially 
when they are making claims about being able to stabilize whole-body patients - 
if there is no medical evidence for what cryonicists are doing, why are they 
doing it?

In my opinion, the goal should be to close the gap between medical practice and 
cryonics, not to accept it as an inevitable gulf.

I agree organ donation should not be an urgent, immediate goal for cryonics, but
I just felt like responding to the broader issues you raised, which relate to 
other problems of cryonics today.


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


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32149