X-Message-Number: 7156 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:03:56 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Professionalism and other topics Since various topics have been raised that deserve specific answers, I'm troubled by the vagueness of some of the replies. >From Bob Ettinger: > Yes, in Michigan (and probably other states) the law provides that no one > except a licensed funeral director may cut or inject a dead person-- Which other states have such a law? Does anyone have this information? It's obviously important. > But CI has also begun a policy of developing a world network of cooperating > funeral directors and equipping and training them to do washout and > perfusion. "World network" implies foreign countries. Which countries? And what equipment? I'm not trying to be difficult; I just think that if cryonics is going to seem plausible and trustworthy to outsiders, we should be specific in our claims. > We believe that, building on their embalming school training, well > chosen funeral directors can be trained to do specific procedures as > effectively, in most cases, as M.D. surgeons, and at MUCH lower cost. Which "specific procedures"? Femoral cutdowns? Okay, fair enough. Properly instrumented perfusion with blood-gas analysis and observation of the capillaries in the brain using fiber optic scopes? No way! So--what are the "specific procedures" that Bob is talking about here? > It is important, if possible, to do not only"stabilization" but also washout > and perfusion locally. Our results suggest that promptness is more important > than the details of the procedure. Why is it desirable to do perfusion locally? Is there any evidence that an organ preservation solution such as Viaspan is not effective to preserve a patient during transport to a cryonics lab where perfusion will take place after an interval of 12 to 24 hours? What are the results suggesting that promptness is more important? > Traveling teams starting from a great > distance can seldom do a prompt job in cases where death was unexpected--and > in standby cases the cost can be very high for traveling teams who may have > to wait for days or weeks, or else make a decision to go home and hope the > patient lives. Very true. This is one of the big problems associated with the small resources of cryonics organizations and the geographical dispersion of members. But what's the alternative? Are you going to have trained morticians all over the country? How are they going to be found and trained? How will their skills be monitored? How will the cryonics organization know whether they are doing a good job? Most deaths are not sudden; the human body is a complex system that tends to fail incrementally, and a transport team often does have time to reach the patient before legal death. Speaking personally, if I have to choose between a local mortician and a team of properly trained, experienced cryonicists, ideally including at least one MD, there's no question which I prefer. > Over the next year or two I suspect that the procedures of all organizations > will tend to converge, as a result of the invigorated research now going > on--possibly using Visser-related technology. At CI we think the indications, > so far, are that we can move to the new methods without raising prices. What new methods? And why does Bob believe the procedures will tend to converge? ---------------- A question was also raised about the financial viability of cryonics organizations. Since this question emanated from a known troll I will not answer it here. If anyone wants details of the case more than twenty years ago where an organization failed to care properly for its patients, email me. I have the full detailed history and will be glad to send it. ---------------- Steve Bridge writes, on the subject of professionalism: > All Trustees for Alcor's new Patient Care Trust -- where most of > the *money* will be (more on this in a message soon!) -- are also > required to be Alcor suspension members. A minimum of 3 of 5 > Trustees must be related to Alcor suspension patients. There are > many more reasons for these people to continue to make secure > decisions than to give the company to "take-over artists." This merely tells us that the trust managers--who presumably invest patient funds--are signed up to be frozen. It says nothing about their qualifications to run a trust. > Alcor's past three Presidents (including in-coming President > Fred Chamberlain) have had quite a bit of management experience. More vague generalizations. What is the management experience? I think it is really counterproductive to make statements like this, because their lack of specificity implies that there is something to hide. The fact is, so far as I know, no cryonics organization currently has a president who possesses management experience in the sense that is generally understood by this term. This does not mean however that cryonics organizations are mismanaged. It merely means that they are run by people who lack management qualifications. Possibly, other qualifications are more important since all cryonics organizations are small businesses. For instance, technical/medical qualifications may matter more. Also, some organizations may receive management advice from qualified independent consultants (CryoCare certainly does). But I think it may be misleading to suggest that cryonics organizations are RUN by people with management experience. I agree with Steve's other comments about personal motivation. Obviously if cryonics organizations were not run by people with a strong desire to be well frozen, there would be no cryonics organizations. None. It certainly isn't a money-making activity. --Charles Platt CryoCare Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7156