X-Message-Number: 8731
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #8717 - #8723
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:06:00 -0800 (PST)

To Kennita:

I'd have no objection to your head transplant so long as you know what you're
getting in to. You'll still grow old and you'll still eventually need 
either cryonics or the discovery (progressive or not) of means to slow, delay,
and ultimately reverse aging.

Moreover, unfortunately, though it's very likely that in the "near future"
we'll actually know how to get the nerves connecting your head with its new
body to actually connect, we can't do that now. Until then, you'll basically
continue to live as someone with no control over their limbs at all, and 
even require artificial stimulation of your new body for it to continue
to send blood through your head and breathe. (This is not novel, it's state
of the art). Whatever work you do now, you would have to adapt it to this
new situation. You'll probably also need lots of help just to move around,
although they do have automated wheelchairs, etc etc. IF society ie. the
government puts up with head transplants, then they would probably 
help out. Otherwise there would be a problem with cost.

Since we use our breathing system to speak, also, you'd need some help
there. We're fortunate in that now you could buy a computer system
capable of taking dictation. So with some expense you could write for a living.
Other possible activities can flow on from there.

One problem with the cost of such an arrangement, which I believe has not
arisen in cryonics yet but still may --- it's one of those overhanging
issues --- is that of choice. If you can't provide the funding needed for
such a setup yourself, and "society" won't either, you'll probably have to
choose suspension. Even more, some medical treatments can be quite expensive
and give only a few years more. Some of us will be faced one day with the
choice of paying for such treatments but giving up cryonic suspension, or
choosing cryonic suspension NOW, despite all its problems. (When I ran into
my own problems, I had health insurance, but no health insurance I know of
will put out, in a lifetime, more than some large fixed amount --- after
which it stops paying. And I wondered, then, if I would end up as someone
with the problem I've just described). 

I don't really have any moral problems with head transplants. And when we
can truly reconnect that head with its new body, the practical problems 
will go away. But that will take some time, and quite seriously until then
it just may be so costly that it would be better to choose suspension ---
we'd only be delaying the inevitable, or even worse, choosing to take only
a few more years at the cost of a possible cure for our problem.

To all those interested in the suicide option:

Brandt-Erickson deserves high praise for his close following of this issue.
Unfortunately we're also seeing many attempts to slow it down, place
restrictions on it, etc etc. Many a slip twicst cup and lip. One thing, 
which hopefully won't happen, is that there will be so many restrictions
that to use this option to do a cryonic suspension becomes impossible or
impractical except in VERY special cases, none of which exist now.

And as for freezing embryos:

Even though current embryo freezing occurs very early, I can see a few  
"right-to-lifers" might become interested in it. However my sense of what
those people are really interested in doing is placing more restrictions
on women. Even now, if a woman has a baby there are all kinds of obstacles
to her simply giving it to some other couple to raise. Clearly no technical
solution will solve their problem. "Right to life" is too often a smokescreen
for a means to impose restrictions and even punishment on women who have
transgressed. (Yes, there are lots of technical ways to do THAT, too, but
I doubt that anyone in this forum would like them!).

In terms of the science, though, it may actually be easier to freeze an
embryo, even at the 8 months stage, than to freeze an adult or child. 
Embryos retain lots more repair ability than those who have been born.
Moreover, there would be no problem with preservation of memory, because
(at least to a first approximation) they haven't yet begun to accumulate
any. Nor would there be any issue of preservation of self. (Incidentally,
this is one reason transplants of brain tissue from embryos have been
studied for clinical use, at least in countries allowing that, such as
Sweden. The embryonic neurons can adapt in ways that neurons from an 
adult, or even a child, cannot). So far, however, no one has done such
studies, and the first problem in doing them would be that of getting 
the required funding. 

I'll even go so far as to say that if the embryo is taken in the first
two months, we very probably could work out ways to preserve it indefinitely.
It would take some research and therefore money, though. 

			Best and long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8731