Terminally ill British girl wins right to freeze her body

TerrorFirmer

Edups wrote: »

These cryo labs are con men. They promise the world to you while in fact you're not only dead - you're frozen and dead.

If you'd take a brief second to take a breather from ranting and raving, you'd know that the Cryo company is a non-profit organisation and does not, in any way shape or form, promise revival in the future.

But don't let that stop a good rabble.

Phoebas

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

If you'd take a brief second to take a breather from ranting and raving, you'd know that the Cryo company is a non-profit organisation and does not, in any way shape or form, promise revival in the future.

But don't let that stop a good rabble.

Ah c'mon, that whole basis of the industry is the idea that you may be revived in the future. It isn't in their t&cs but that's essentially what they are selling.
As for not for profit, the cost in this case is £37k, so regardless of how the company is structured, large amounts of money are changing hands here.

If this industry could demonstrate an ability to freeze an revive a higher mammal, them maybe they could be seen as legitimate, but as it is they are just selling a pipe dream to desperate people.

TerrorFirmer

Phoebas wrote: »

Ah c'mon, that whole basis of the industry is the idea that you may be revived in the future. It isn't in their t&cs but that's essentially what they are selling.
As for not for profit, the cost in this case is £37k, so regardless of how the company is structured, large amounts of money are changing hands here.

If this industry could demonstrate an ability to freeze an revive a higher mammal, them maybe they could be seen as legitimate, but as it is they are just selling a pipe dream to desperate people.

They're non-profit, not money grabbing commerical ventures. They're fully upfront about the prospects, and that it's a chance, and a leap of faith in future medtech, rather than anything remotely approaching a guarantee. They view it as a scientific venture, really.

They're also pretty explicit that even if revival is possible in the future, it's impossible to say if you would still be 'you', how your memories may be affected, or if you would even be a functional human being.

Personally I think it's unfair when people paint them as snake oil selling, money grabbing vultures leeching off peoples desperation - that's not really what cryogenics is about and I don't believe they're in any way exploiting people.

And of course they can't demonstrate that revival is possible - because it's currently not possible on actual people or animals, though it is currently possible to suspend and revive simpler organic materials like embryos so it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

That is the entire point of contemporary cryogenics.....you're suspended until a time when it is, if ever, viable to revive you.

If the people of 1916 were described the cutting edge of technology of 1966, let alone 2016, it would appear so beyond the known concept of science-fiction as to be utterly absurd. Can we really pretend to know that in 2116 or 2216, cryogenic suspension and revival will 100%, resolutely, never be viable?

Once you die in the conventional sense, your time in this world is up, so banking on cryogenics is not exactly a gamble nor a waste of cash - you have nothing to lose and in most cases it's covered by life insurance plans.

alan1963

Phoebas wrote: »

they are just selling a pipe dream to desperate people.

This is just what the church has been doing for century's.

Phoebas

alan1963 wrote: »

This is just what the church has been doing for century's.

Exactly.
This is little more than superstition dressed up as modernity.

Phoebas

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

They're non-profit, not money grabbing commerical ventures.

I don't doubt their motives, but there are large amounts of money changing hands here. Lots of people are getting paid. In this case, desperate people are doing the paying.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

If the people of 1916 were described the cutting edge of technology of 1966, let alone 2016, it would appear so beyond the known concept of science-fiction as to be utterly absurd. Can we really pretend to know that in 2116 or 2216, cryogenic suspension and revival will 100%, resolutely, never be viable?

Of course we don't 'know' that this won't be possible in the future, but you could pluck almost any idea from thin air and make the same argument.

As it is, this is so early stage that they shouldn't be taking money of desperate individuals for it. By all means, do the research using the normal ways of funding highly speculative, theoretical technologies, but taking money off desperate people at this stage is, to my mind, unethical.

The flying mouse

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

Space travel is utter bilge.
- Dr. Richard van der Reit Wooley, Astronomer Royal, space advisor to the British government, 1956. (Sputnik orbited the earth the following year.)

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.
- Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

Nuclear Power...any one who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine... - Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) [1933]

Baloney. Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth in no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.”-Clifford Stoll



I certainly wouldn't discount this happening in the future, And to dismiss it as pure baloney is kinda silly imo. You can never say never.

Phoebas

The flying mouse wrote: »

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

Space travel is utter bilge.
- Dr. Richard van der Reit Wooley, Astronomer Royal, space advisor to the British government, 1956. (Sputnik orbited the earth the following year.)

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.
- Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

Nuclear Power...any one who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine... - Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) [1933]

Baloney. Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth in no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.”-Clifford Stoll



I certainly wouldn't discount this happening in the future, And to dismiss it as pure baloney is kinda silly imo. You can never say never.

I wouldn't discount it either, but normally when someone proposes (and accepts money for) a technology, the onus is on them to demonstrate at least a pathway to it.
For human medical technologies, it's usual to do the research in the lab, then on 'simple' mammals like mice, then on higher mammals, and then on humans.
And maybe then start charging vulnerable people for it.

The 'other people were wrong about other stuff in the past' argument isn't a very convincing argument for cryogenics I'm afraid.

Sam Kade

They were on about this story on sky news last night some fella is paying £15/month in insurance to get his head preserved after death in the hopes he'll be back some time in the future. If you saw the mullicky head on him, not worth preserving.

TerrorFirmer

It's mostly funded by life insurance though, people aren't handing over 50-200k in one swoop from their own piggy banks. Now, in the case of the 14 year old, it's obviously different, given the context, but 37K is not a huge sum of money considering what's actually happening here.

Lots of people are getting paid.

Of course there are, you cannot run a facility like Alcor/KrioRus without having a large complement of highly trained, specialist staff and the equipment, premises and systems to go along with it. No different than large non-profit/charities anywhere in the world.

Many of those involved with Alcor don't even take a salary, they contribute their time in the name of science.

but you could pluck almost any idea from thin air and make the same argument.

Well there are degrees. That cryogenics and revival will be possible in one or two hundred years is certainly feasible, even if opinions differ on just how feasible.

Something like 'apes will rule the planet and humans will live in underground bunkers by 2116' while not impossible, is most certainly less feasible I'm sure you'll agree.

To compare it to the church and the promise of eternal life in heaven with the 'creator' is an unfair comparison. One hopes that a greater power will greet you at the pearly gates and reveal that life as we understand it is merely a trial for eternal glory in heaven.

The other hopes to suspend (freezing is not the correct term really) those who succumb to modern illnesses in the hope that in the near future, these ailments will be treatable and they can be revived.

From a logic-based agnostic or atheist perspective, even if you doubt the feasibility of cryogenics, can we really say they're equally as likely (or unlikely)?

We have to remember that a key component in this is the definition of death - these people are clinically deceased and effectively 'dead' as we understand it today, but their brains are alive, intact and functioning at the moment of suspension and are not, theoretically, actually dead to the point that information retrieval or revival is technically impossible.

Fleawuss

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

The judge specifically said this was not about cryogenics or the likelihood of this girl being brought back to life. It was about giving this young woman the right to have her body disposed of as she requested.

There's a very interesting legal precedent. There was a thread about a dying person being able to choose their type of funeral and bring over ruled after death by relatives. Maybe things have moved on.

Lackey

Edups wrote: »

When you've died you're dead. I completely agree her father was against it, we don't spend 37k to preserve ourselves, No one wants to die either. But everyone gets to. That's how life works. We don't get to turn off dying because we are afraid. Doesn't make a difference what age you are.

Nice, why don't you go find a 14 year old dying of cancer and say that to them?

And what the f$%k is 37k if your child is dying, and there's nothing you can do about it only raise 37k to offer her some peace at the end?
37k is nothing when it's your child, unless your this dad^^ of course and try block it ?
Why would he do that? Because 37k??

Like someone said above a 14 year old dying of cancer can have whatever she wants.

Edups

Lackey wrote: »

Nice, why don't you go find a 14 year old dying of cancer and say that to them?

And what the f$%k is 37k if your child is dying, and there's nothing you can do about it only raise 37k to offer her some peace at the end?
37k is nothing when it's your child, unless your this dad^^ of course and try block it ?
Why would he do that? Because 37k??

Like someone said above a 14 year old dying of cancer can have whatever she wants.

You seem fixed on the cancer, if she was dying of something else would it make a difference?

Her father didn't agree because it's bull****. Why would he care what it costs when he didn't pay?

Lackey

Edups wrote: »

You seem fixed on the cancer, if she was dying of something else would it make a difference?

No it would not.
If it was your child dying, and this is what they wanted would it make a difference?

And her father just had to drag the girl through court over her last months to prove that didn't he?
At least now he can say to himself 'I made my point'

railer201

For those who believe that we are actually 'beings' or souls that just inhabit a 'robot' for a determined life-span, what happens on the re-awakening ?

Does the original soul return or is a new soul allocated to 'robot' MK2 ?

Edups

Lackey wrote: »

No it would not.
If it was your child dying, and this is what they wanted would it make a difference?

And her father just had to drag the girl through court over her last months to prove that didn't he?
At least now he can say to himself 'I made my point'

No it would not make a difference. There would be no cryogenic storage unless it was proven to work.

Lackey

Edups wrote: »

No it would not make a difference. There would be no cryogenic storage unless it was proven to work

To me it's not about wether it would work or not,
More that there's nothing I wouldn't do, and if that's what the child wanted, that's what they'd get.

But I guess we are just wired differently so I'll agree to disagree.

Grayson

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

What are you on about? I said if she was frozen while still alive so again, I did not say she died from freezing.

How many people have been unfrozen and brought back to life?

There's a doctor in Japan (He's american) who believes that death shouldn't be final. He has a case of a woman who came in after an accident. The damage was too extensive and she died. So he lowered the body temperature. They kept working on the body. When they had repaired the worst damage they raised the temperature and revived her. It was hours later.

The woman he revived later went on to get married and become a mother. Remember she was dead for hours.

The fact is that death doesn't have to be the end. Unfortunately we live in a world where it is. Someone dies and we just move on.

At the moment we can't cryogenicly freeze someone and revive them. We can do the first part but not the second. It may be that we won't be able to revive someone who has been frozen using todays procedures but we definitely won't be able to revive someone who's dead and buried.

Joshua J

If you believe that if you could somehow create an exact facsimile of your brain, down to the last neuron, that'd it would be you with your personality and memories then it's not so far-fetched. 3-D organic printing. Who knows it could be only 50 years down the line. If you'd told my father as a kid what the world would be like in 50 years he probably couldn't even have grasped the ideas. Same as us today.

topmanamillion

Very sad situation.

There's a few facts about this case
Before I start "The definition of a fact is something that is true or something that has occurred or has been proven correct"

The girl is dead. There's no argument to the countray.
After a couple of minutes of oxygen starvation the brain either becomes damaged or dies. This girls brain is currently dead.

There may well be no cure for cancer only ever improving outcomes.

The idea that someone in the future will be able to defrost this girl, give her an injection and she'll be running around probably isn't realistic at any time in the future.

WinnyThePoo

What tactic you using AMC? Your hungarian DMC is savage

TerrorFirmer

Joshua J wrote: »

If you believe that if you could somehow create an exact facsimile of your brain, down to the last neuron, that'd it would be you with your personality and memories then it's not so far-fetched. 3-D organic printing. Who knows it could be only 50 years down the line. If you'd told my father as a kid what the world would be like in 50 years he probably couldn't even have grasped the ideas. Same as us today.

Cloning and reproduction rather than revival of the original material raises the other issue, though.... would you be 'you'?

The new creation could be a perfect clone of you that retains all your memories and for all intents and purposes it IS the person that was suspended - but nonetheless be a different consciousness and the original 'you' would remain both dead and unrevived.

That's a real mind melt to think about.

topmanamillion

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Cloning and reproduction rather than revival of the original material raises the other issue, though.... would you be 'you'?

The new creation could be a perfect clone of you that retains all your memories and for all intents and purposes it IS the person that was suspended - but nonetheless be a different consciousness and the original 'you' would remain both dead and unrevived.

That's a real mind melt to think about.

This is the problem with these kind of discussions. People are trying to guess what will come for humanity in hundred and even thousands of years. During this process people leave behind reality and it's a free for all for any science fiction fan.

The way cloning currently works is it can create a genetic replica of the life form it's based on.
That's where the similarities end.
The closest human example is an identical set of twins. They would be identical genitically but in now way are they the same person.

Joshua J

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Cloning and reproduction rather than revival of the original material raises the other issue, though.... would you be 'you'?

The new creation could be a perfect clone of you that retains all your memories and for all intents and purposes it IS the person that was suspended - but nonetheless be a different consciousness and the original 'you' would remain both dead and unrevived.

That's a real mind melt to think about.

Yep it reminds me of the film The Prestige. We know too little about consciousness and the human brain/memory to even guess what the outcomes would be. Personally I see no issue with getting frozen, sure what do you have to lose if you don't believe in an afterlife?.

Dravokivich

Lackey wrote: »

Nice, why don't you go find a 14 year old dying of cancer and say that to them?

And what the f$%k is 37k if your child is dying, and there's nothing you can do about it only raise 37k to offer her some peace at the end?
37k is nothing when it's your child, unless your this dad^^ of course and try block it ?
Why would he do that? Because 37k??

Like someone said above a 14 year old dying of cancer can have whatever she wants.

37k is a trivial amount of money these days?

topmanamillion

Grayson wrote: »

There's a doctor in Japan (He's american) who believes that death shouldn't be final. He has a case of a woman who came in after an accident. The damage was too extensive and she died. So he lowered the body temperature. They kept working on the body. When they had repaired the worst damage they raised the temperature and revived her. It was hours later.

The woman he revived later went on to get married and become a mother. Remember she was dead for hours.

The fact is that death doesn't have to be the end. Unfortunately we live in a world where it is. Someone dies and we just move on.

At the moment we can't cryogenicly freeze someone and revive them. We can do the first part but not the second. It may be that we won't be able to revive someone who has been frozen using todays procedures but we definitely won't be able to revive someone who's dead and buried.

I think this is the case you are thinking about and it's a bit different from how you tell it.
She was extremely lucky rather than some marvel of medical science.

"In a remarkable 2011 case, a woman in Japan, intent on committing suicide, wandered into a forest and overdosed on pills. The next morning, a passerby found her. When emergency personnel arrived, her body temperature was 20C. She had no pulse and was not breathing. Efforts to shock her heart into action failed, but rather than send her to the morgue, doctors connected her to an extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) machine – a device that acts as an artificial lung and heart, and is a standard of care in Japan – and left her to circulate.
Several hours into the procedure, her heart fluttered back to life. The woods’ cool temperature, it turned out, had prevented the woman’s cells from breaking down as quickly as they would have in a warmer environment, allowing her to lay dead in the forest for around four hours, plus survive an additional six hours between the time the passerby called the ambulance and the time her heart began beating again. Three weeks later, she left the hospital, and today she is happily married and recently delivered a baby. “If one of our [emergency medical service] crews found that young girl, she would have just been declared dead,” Parnia says."

Skommando

Dravokivich wrote: »

37k is a trivial amount of money these days?

It is if you're dead

Edups

Dravokivich wrote: »

37k is a trivial amount of money these days?

When you have cancer apparently it is.

take everything

Fair play to her.
Great attitude.

I had no idea it was so cheap to do this. 30 grand or so is nothing. Makes you wonder why more people don't do it.

Felix Jones is God

take everything wrote: »

Fair play to her.
Great attitude.

I had no idea it was so cheap to do this. 30 grand or so is nothing. Makes you wonder why more people don't do it.

Fair play my arse.
30k should have been given to the hospital who cared for her to help improve facilities or to cancer research uk...then it wouldn't have been wasted