X-Message-Number: 9364
From: Ettinger <>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:56:52 EST
Subject: strategies & priorities

Charles Platt (#9360) sounds discouraged; I hope he isn't nearing burnout,
after years of intensive efforts.

As to the overall picture, as usual we can choose to emphasize our successes
and potential successes, or our failures and possible further failures. We
must pay attention to the failures and partial failures for their lessons, but
both optimism and pessimism can be self-fulfilling. Remember the "winter
soldier and the sunshine patriot" and all that.

At a minimum, some of us (both alive and dead) already have a chance to beat
the Reaper. (In my opinion, the chance is a good one; see "Cryonics: The
Probability of Rescue" at our web site, address below.) At any rate, we are
better off than anyone in previous eras. We have gained a beachhead, so to
speak. Our job now is to secure and expand it, and move on.

Let me say just a little more today about one of Charles' main concerns--the
shortage of standby teams. As I have mentioned--and as I will discuss further
at the Alcor conference--the use of funeral personnel can mitigate the
problem.

I am well aware that Alcor and CryoCare believe their equipment and procedures
are too expensive and complicated for use by funeral directors, and that their
members should be processed by the best known methods. But there are always
trade-offs, even if one were to concede that those "best" methods materially
improve the patient's chances. 

Actually, it remains entirely possible that a full-fledged nanotech, or the
equivalent, will be both necessary and sufficient for rescue of any of today's
patients. At the same time, obviously (1) the individual should choose what he
believes to be the best care he can afford, and (2) the organizations should
offer the best care they can. In the case of Cryonics Institute, we expect to
upgrade services at existing prices and also, if necessary, offer much more
complicated procedures later on at higher prices.

Now again on trade-offs. Our own experience suggests strongly that promptness
of washout and perfusion is more important than the details of procedure. This
means that traveling teams have  built-in limitations on logistics
alone--aside from the problem of volunteers leaving jobs or other
responsibilities at the drop of a hat for a standby of unknown duration.
Funeral personnel, on the other hand, are nearby almost everywhere. They tend
to be competent, responsible, and cooperative. They can learn any well defined
procedure, and perform it at a MUCH lower cost than hospital personnel.
If--for the sake of argument--the choice were between a top-notch traveling
team many hours away, or a funeral team with somewhat more limited
capabilities nearby, I would prefer the latter.

CryoCare uses BioPreservation for standby and preparation. [Perhaps that has
changed or is changing, since apparently Alcor and CryoCare are working toward
a new company to provide transport (and preparation?) services for both of
them, and perhaps for other organizations.] The last documentation I have for
BP costs is 1994,  showing "representative" transport charges of $8,410 for
either whole body or neuro; remote total body washout $7,060 for either whole
body or neuro; charges for hired local services $4,651 whole body or neuro;
and perfusion (at BP facility) including equipment and supplies $3,196 whole
body or $2,800 neuro; perfusion labor and fees $12,250 whole body or neuro;
perfusate $2,314 whole body or $788 neuro; another thousand or so in
miscellaneous charges; plus possible additional charges depending on
circumstances. Grand total minimum $42,670 whole body, $40,038 neuro.  An
extended standby--if available--would no doubt be more, and this was 1994. And
remember, that is preparation only, not storage.

An obvious compromise would be to train and equip funeral directors at some
reasonable level. This would probably cut costs AND improve the patient's
chances, since response time would be on average much quicker and more
reliable.

Charles says no organization is now prepared to handle two simultaneous
emergencies. CI is, at least in some cases. We have funeral directors ready to
go at more than one location, including Europe. We will have more coming on
line as time goes by. We will upgrade their equipment and procedures as
feasible. If other organizations want to explore a common approach with shared
resources, that might help. Remember that, no matter what we do, many patients
will die in unexpected or awkward circumstances, and PROMPTNESS of
response--not sophistication of response--will be the main consideration for
these.

CryoCare's initial ideology envisioned for-profit subcontractors for all
physical and financial services, and Charles says that selling services below
true value is not a viable long term situation. Well, there have been plenty
of stable institutions selling services at far below "true" value. Consider
churches, families, and armies, for openers. Volunteer labor will probably
continue available--although not necessarily for standbys--and donations and
bequests will continue.

The main theme of Charles' post was that growth should not be our first
priority. I won't attempt to tell others where to put their priorities, but it
seems clear to me that growth should not be neglected. Growth certainly will
contribute to our strength more than it drains. If CC is discouraged by anemic
growth rates, their response is their business; but CI's response to slow
growth is to try to speed it up--AND improve service at the same time.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org   

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9364