X-Message-Number: 7649
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:41:54 -0700 (MST)
From: Fred Chamberlain <>
>From Fred Chamberlain, in response to:
>Message #7584
>Date: 28 Jan 97 21:05:50 EST
>From: Mike Darwin <>
>Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Response to Fred Chamberlain
>When Fred talks about "extraordinary risks to marginally improve
>suspensions in a select number of cases" being taken he opens
>himself to a number of questions which I now ask of him:
(the above was transposed from beneath the following questions):
>1) The first and foremost is what constitutes "marginal
>improvement" and "extraordinary risks?"
"Extraordinary risk" would be a practice of overstepping boundaries
established by the individual's organization, as to acceptable risks.
A "marginal improvement" might be an improvement where the benefits
are relatively far smaller than differences such as (1) autopsy vs.
no autopsy, (2) order of magnitude differences in ischemic time, or
(3) some medication vs. no medication.
>These seemingly straightforward statements rest, in fact, on
>context and value judgements which are not very clear cut and
>are often situational.
I agree.
>2) For instance, would Fred consider sparing a patient 4 or even
>6 hours of normothermic cerebral-cortical ischemia a "marginal improvement?"
No.
>3) If a loved one of Fred's were to experience cardiac arrest at home
>during a blizzard (such as the one that immobilized the Tahoe area just a
>few days ago, where Fred used to live) hours away from rescue or
>outside help would it be worth the risk to inject that person (post mortem)
>with heparin to prevent clotting, remove their clothing and pack them
>with snow in the bath tub in order to minimize ischemic injury?
>Would these interventions be worthwhile even if they had the potential
>to trigger medico-legal intervention at worst, or a firestorm of negative press
>and questions over such a "bizarre" practice at best?
Mike is referring to an actual discussion over a decade ago, in which this
was indeed the issue. The context was that of an individual member taking
such a risk on behalf of a familiy member, without being a representive the
organization in an official capacity, very different from such a risk
taken by an official of a cryonics organization as a standard practice, in
violation of specific policies set forth to prevent "medico-legal intervention
or negative press".
>4) Is the very real risk of premedicating a patient with, say vitamin E
>and other over the counter "nutrients" worth the benefit? How much
>benefit is there in premedication? How much risk?
Possibly good benefit; seemingly low risk.
Fred Chamberlain, President ()
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Phone (602) 922-9013 (800) 367-2228 FAX (602) 922-9027
for general requests
website>>> http://www.alcor.org
************************************************************
* For most human beings, *
* Physical obliteration comes in three basic "flavors", *
* Earth, Water and Fire *
* (Burial on land, at sea, and cremation). *
* Critics of cryonics would add a fourth flavor, "Ice"! *
* *
* But the final answer will not soon be known, *
* And by the time it is fully determined, *
* The critics will no longer be "in the audience"! *
* *
* Contact ALCOR - "" *
* or dial 602-922-9013, fax 602-922-9027 *
************************************************************
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7649