X-Message-Number: 5869
From: John Sharman <>
Newsgroups: uk.legal,sci.cryonics,sci.life-extension
Subject: Re: Virtue of suffering (was Donaldson MR and Miss Hindley)
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 96 13:01:13 GMT
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>

In article <>  "Brian Wowk" writes:


> In <> John Sharman <>
>  writes:

[..]

> >A couple of weeks ago an elderly lady here achieved notoriety for
> >"waking up" some hours after being pronounced dead in hospital - just as
> >they were putting her into the mortuary fridge, in fact. According to
> >you she is now a ghost and if I kill her I do not commit murder. I am
> >strongly tempted to tell you to "get a life".
> 
>         Now this discussion is getting REALLY interesting.  You have 
> repeatedly criticized cryonicists for the folly of freezing "dead"
> people and believing that they can be "resurrected."

Brian I warned you against sinking to the level of the late Mr. Evens.
That level gives a whole new meaning to the expression "absolute zero" -
please try to avoid doing it again.

Seriously, I post quite profusely and you will not be surprised to hear
that I become engaged in my share of animated (even "heated") arguments.
However it is *only* cryonicists who repeatedly and routinely accuse me
of making statements which I have quite simply never uttered. Often as
not they're the opposite of what I have said.

It just adds to the unfortunate impression of untruthfulness received
from other cryonicist utterances. It is true that I believe that the
chances of successfully resurrecting anyone frozen to date to be very
slim indeed. But I have never criticised cryonicists for freezing the
bodies of those who have given a fully informed consent. If you
disagree, all you have to do is to point me to the post where I have
said what you allege.

>                                                        I then pointed
> out that many cryonics patients are in fact biologically alive
> (by current criteria) at the start of our procedures because we
> *resuscitate* patients after they are declared legally dead.  You
> now acknowledge the biological weakness (if not irrelevance) of 
> current criteria for pronouncing death, and use that fact as basis
> for accusing us of murder.

I think that this is a real legal problem, but does it not arise from
the fact that you and your customers regard legal "death" as an
unfortunate obstacle to what you think of as a timely start to vital
resuscitation procedures. Here I have some sympathy for your customers
because I can see no moral argument (subject to suitable checks
including if necessary a Court Order from a Judge who should need to be
satisfied *only* that the Applicant was mens sana, sui juris and free
from undue influence or oppression) against assisted suicide. The fact
that the law will not sanction such action at present is a disgrace, but
that it a matter of freedom of the individual rather than cryonics.

>         You are really begging the question.  If we are guilty of
> murder for intercepting, resuscitating, and freezing a legally
> dead patient that the hospital was about to send to the morgue,
> THEN WHY ISN'T THE HOSPITAL GUILTY OF THE SAME CRIME IF THEY DO SEND
> THAT PATIENT TO THE MORGUE?

The problem arises once your resuscitation has been successful.

In the case of the hospital's acts it's not murder because (i) it's not done
with the necessary specific intent and (ii) there is no intervening
resuscitation. In the case of the durable old lady tt would potentially
be manslaughter though, even if impossible to prove in the circumstances.

>         It seems to me, John, that you are trying to play both sides
> of the fence.  How can you mock us for freezing dead people, and
> at the same time accuse us of murder?

I will not accuse you of murder unless you tell that you have performed
the necessary act with the necessary intent. I don't mock you for
freezing dead people at all - I just think that your prospects of
success are very limited *as of now*. I may give you a different answer
in 5 years' time. But if you start freezing living people (which
presumably improves your prospects of success, then you are asking for
(and will get) trouble.
--
Regards,

John Sharman
 +====================================================================+
 |  John Sharman               Internet:    |
 |                             Tel/Fax: +44 (0)1603 452142            |
 +====================================================================+


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5869