X-Message-Number: 7454
Date: 08 Jan 97 07:13:28 EST
From: Michael Darwin <>
Subject: Suicide and cryonics

Brad Templeton writes:

>But if, like many, they signed up simply because Cryonics was an
>interesting experiment, and the alternative was certain death, what then?
>Nobody sane believes cryonics *will* work, at best they think it might
>work.  At best you're taking a gamble and all you're betting is some
>money.

>But even with such a person cryonics could be perceived as now encouraging
>him, in his terminal desperation, to gamble with what remains of his
>(painful) *life*.

>And society will tolerate people gambling with their lives.  But it
>absolutely does not tolerate somebody being in the business of
>encouraging and facilitating that gamble when, remember, the bulk of
>society thinks that the business has convinced the sucker that there
>is a chance, when society "knows" there is one.

>Imagine a drug company selling a drug they say has a 1% chance of curing
>you of AIDS, otherwise it kills you on the spot.  But the chance is better
>if you take it early in your disease.  And they don't know it has the
>chance of curing, and it never has, and many reputable doctors say it
>won't work, but it costs a lot of money.  And some desperate AIDS patients,
>looking for any hope, want to take it, even though it has never yet
>worked.

>Would society let them?  Nope...

>Definitely not somebody who decided to do this after they got sick,
>society -- even I -- would not judge their decision as fully rational.


Mr. Templeton has written on this theme before and with what, from my
perspective, is a perhaps understandable (but regretable) lack of understanding
of the realities involved in the care of terminally ill cryonics patients and
the tough decisions such patients have to make.  Mr. Templeton might wish to
consider the following _facts_:

1) I have graphic and truly horrible videotape of three cryonics patients with
primary or secondary CNS disease  STARVING and DEHYDRATING themselves to death
weeks to months (probably several months in two cases) before they otherwise
would have died.  In some districts today this would be ruled suicide.  

2) Depending on to what degree the cryonics organization can be accused of using
"undue influence or fraud" these cases might be considered homicides.  However,
in the cases I know of to date I think this unlikely given the intense
determination of the patients and the strong counseling they received to
consider other alternatives.


3) Mr. Templeton, I mean no disrespect, but you need a few up-close and personal
experiences whatching someone you love die a slow, horrible death.  Your posts
on this topic are marked (in my opinion) with a profound lack of both insight

and compassion.  I don't particularly like active euthanasia as a social entity.
I think it has great capacity for evil and for institutionalizing hopelessness

and medical inaction.  However, it is very hard to tell someone dying a gruesome
death "No. You can't do this."  

4) As far as euthanasia and cryonics are concerned, I know of at least 5 cases
to date (spanning nearly a decade) where people have stopped medical care or
stopped taking fluid and nourishment that would have resulted in _months_ of
additional life (of varying quality).  In most cases it was concern for CNS
integrity that motivated the decision to end life early.  Having watched this

happen up close and personal I have come to the conclusion that cryonics too has

great capacity for causing harm, and is certainly not a "no load" proposition as
has been so often been stated by its promoters (including me, in the past).
Cryonics is very costly for those who stand to benefit from it most.  And it is
a devastating emotional experience to watch someone rinse their mouth with a
teaspoon of coffee or ice and spit it out so they will not remain hydrated and
so that they will hasten their dying -- all to provide protection for their
brains in the hope of return to life in some distant future.

5) Finally, if you take cryopreservation seriously, what exactly do YOU do, Mr.
Templeton, if you find a glioblastoma eating away at your brain and by the time
your quality of life is very low you will no longer be _able_ to refuse fluid
and food -- and furthermore you won't have much of a brain left either.  Many
people without primary brain disease nevertheless find themselves with
metastases of cancer to their brain which present terrible choices.  I watched

Jim Gallagher decide to stop supportive oxygen therapy that might have given him
"several months of reasonable quality life" (by Mr. Templeton's criteria?).  It
is hard to watch a man playing cards with friends and then a few hours later be
perfusing him.

These are, however, the choices cryonics confronts people with.  What would YOU
do Mr. Templeton if you confronted a mass the size of a lemon in your head and
were going blind and were already incontinent and impotent with the prospect of
hemiparesis and dementia looming in your future -- not to mention failed
cerebral perfusion for _hours_ (read=ischemia) before your heart stopped?  What
would your choice be?

I have repeatedly encountered these terrible conondrums in my clinical practice
of cryonics.  They are not at all theoretical or waiting in the future.  They
exist NOW. Right now.  And I am desperately tired of confronting these
situations without being able to answer the anguished question so often asked
(and currently unanswerable) "Will this work for me?  Can you save me?"  These
questions come from long-time as well as last minute cryonics clients/patients.

No decent human being should have to suffer the indignities of starving and
dehydrating themselves to death.  One 150 pound patient weighed 68 pounds when
she finally arrested after something like 10 days without food or fluid.

For those patients who die slowly with many hours in shock, and who experience
midposition pupils for many hours before their heart stops (a not uncommon
occurence in dying cryopatients and a clinical sign of brain death) I doubt
whether cryonics is doing them much good, if any.  Already about 10% of AIDS
patients are ending their lives with active euthanasia.  Having seen this

disease up close, I understand why.  I do not see it as the role of the cryonics
organization to encourage or discourage either passive or active euthanasia.

Equally, I do not see it as any of the business of cryonics organizations if its

clients choose either of those paths: as long the choice is not based on hype or
salesmanship about the desireability of such options.  However, how do you walk
the thin line of providing information which constitutes informed consent?  Do
you not tell patients what their choices are?

As to Society's tolerating these courses of action, well society already has.
Will it continue to do so?  That is anyone's guess.  But, a fair determiner of
how things will turn out will be HOW cryonics organizations handle this
agonizing issue.  If they cannot put their differences aside and sit down and
come up with uniform policies and procedures to protect their members and the
cryonics organizations as a whole, then their future is probably not rosy.
However, in contrast to your apparent belief that this is a problem for the
future, let me assure it is very much a problem which is here and now.

And, having seen the intractable misery as well as  the intelligence and
resourcefulness of many dying cryonicists, I can state with certainty that with

or without the approval or disapproval of their cryonics societies, cryopatients
WILL engage in both passive and active euthanasia.  Period.  Cryonicists, after
all, are people who fundamentally don't much give a damn about what anyone
thinks (not even Brad Templeton).  And all to frequently they don't give a damn
about anyone -- but themselves.

Mike Darwin


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7454