Girl wins legal case to be cryogenically frozen



Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
Developed countires will not become 'overpopulated' They won't be freezing millions of starving Africans, it'll be middle class white folk in western countries with plummeting fertility.
Who knows what these categories will mean in 200 years, or how wealth will be distributed

But yes definitely for now, this is the preserve of wealthy people in the first world... another term that may mean nothing in 50 years, let alone 200...
 
O

Oscurito

if its essentially a family dispute where they came around to an agreed position, then it is sorted, I don't see any public policy issue here. if family want to support a dead person's wishes that is their business. objectively its a waste of money but no worse than building a big mausoleum or wanting your dead body or ashes launched into space.
It might get interesting if people wanted the right to be frozen before they die
Ultimately, money is being handed over in the hope of a return at some point in the future. Have a read of the Daily Telegraph's coverage. I've now added the link to the OP. The hours after her death seemed to have been chaotic, poorly handled and put a lot of pressure on the hospital.

A team of volunteers from a group called Cryonics UK were supposed to do the initial preparation of the body but they're not medical professionals and seemed to expect responses from the hospital that the hospital was in no position to give.

This is not just a disposal of the body. It's a new area and it needs discussion and regulation.
 

Bubbleheaded

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
551
It's an interesting one with numerous legal pitfalls. I don't think the person is completely "dead" as in "brain dead" when the company acquire the body.

The heart has stopped but the brain hasn't and that's when the cryonics company start the freezing process, it's a very short time window.

Without having read the OP in full it would explain why the father was involved - the girl isn't actually "dead" yet!
The patient has to be pronounced dead by a medical professional. This means that either there has been an irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain. I would imagine that any medical professional involved would want to ensure cessation of brain death before this procedure was carried out.
There are some interesting discussions doing the rounds about information-theoretic death, some of which is scientific, and some of which is pure speculation, or science fiction. Interesting nonetheless.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
I see no difference between being frozen in a box of being buried in a box as regards the person while they are in the box.
The vague chance that being frozen in a box will be a temporary state as opposed to traditional burial, would make it a rational choice as far as I can see.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,478
I was thinking of the former.

The latter seems like a very reasonable desire.
There has to be a time limit and so I'd say the legal contracts are written tighter than Scrooges wallet. Such facilities I'm sure are very expensive to run and 37k would probably get you say 50 years. It is logical to conclude that the contracts stipulate that the service is discontinued. What happens with the bodies? Also, what if the company providing the service goes belly up? Say its run by a bunch of Irish muppets who blow the cash on property (like Cleary's did) and the property market goes belly up? What happens to the bodies?
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,400
I think it is a great idea. As a believer in the final resurrection of the body, it is nice to see someone making God's work that little bit easier. I am sure that if she lobbied the Vatican, she could get a few hundred years off her time in purgatory by way of an indulgence.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
Who knows what these categories will mean in 200 years, or how wealth will be distributed

But yes definitely for now, this is the preserve of wealthy people in the first world... another term that may mean nothing in 50 years, let alone 200...
Perhaps not, but I think we all accept there are multiple possible failed endings to this. The point is some hope is given. If you were an atheist it makes perfect sense.
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
The vague chance that being frozen in a box will be a temporary state as opposed to traditional burial, would make it a rational choice as far as I can see.
It is a rational and perfectly valid choice.. interesting to wonder about how it will work though...

Who is going to take responsibility for this girl if she is revived in 300 years? Who is going to support her? Who will be her legal guardian? Where will she live? etc etc
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,400
It is a rational and perfectly valid choice.. interesting to wonder about how it will work though...

Who is going to take responsibility for this girl if she is revived in 300 years? Who is going to support her? Who will be her legal guardian? Where will she live? etc etc
And will she be the most costly recipient of the state pension ever?
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,478
The vague chance that being frozen in a box will be a temporary state as opposed to traditional burial, would make it a rational choice as far as I can see.
Once you are dead, or frozen, you wont know the difference. Its like people saying they don't want to be buried because they hate the thought of worms eating them. That's not rational because you wont have a clue what's happening. Similarly, I've heard people say they couldn't be cremated because they hate the thought of being burnt. You wont feel it love.

None of this is rational.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,812
You are correct. That is how it works.
You mean they killed this girl while she was still well?
Seriously? (I only heard it reported on radio 4 this morning, but I didn't hear that.)

EDIT : I checked it out, that's not what happened, she died of her cancer (i.e. the cancer is not cured and the damage done by the cancer is not repaired)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/18/cancer-girl-14-is-cryogenically-frozen-after-telling-judge-she-w/

(Perhaps the saddest thing IMO is the fact that the hospital staff mentioned that on the day she died her mother was so busy trying to get the post mortem arrangements on place that she wasn't really available to be with her daughter.)
 
Last edited:

damus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
23,512
It costs more than 30k to cryogenically freeze a body. Possible we are talking about a brain.
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
It is a rational and perfectly valid choice.. interesting to wonder about how it will work though...

Who is going to take responsibility for this girl if she is revived in 300 years? Who is going to support her? Who will be her legal guardian? Where will she live? etc etc
If she is one of the first people to be revived; the ensuing media sensation would probably set her up with some income. In terms of guardianship, she may simply be considered an orphan by social service and be fostered/adopted. 'I adopted a British girl from the past' could be some best selling stuff and sufficiently profitable to attract interest. Even better if her great, great, great grand nephew decides to adopt her.
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
So which will come first, the ability to upload consciousness (which can then be embodied in a cyborg or some biological/artificial hybrid entity enabling us to physically interact with the world).. or successfully working out this freezing and unfreezing malarkey?
 

Roll_On

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
17,544
Once you are dead, or frozen, you wont know the difference. Its like people saying they don't want to be buried because they hate the thought of worms eating them. That's not rational because you wont have a clue what's happening. Similarly, I've heard people say they couldn't be cremated because they hate the thought of being burnt. You wont feel it love.

None of this is rational.
But again, you would know the bloody difference if/when you were woken up.
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
[video=youtube;IFe9wiDfb0E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E[/video]
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,478
You mean they killed this girl while she was still well?
Seriously? (I only heard it reported on radio 4 this morning, but I didn't hear that.)
Possibly not how it worked in this case. Reported here is the girl died of cancer. I presume then the wish is that whatever cure is found in the future it will be one that will get rid of the cancer and afford the patient some quality of life. Presumably your time in cryostasis will be prolonged further than the initial cure for cancer which one would assume will be found to cure it at an early stage rather than one that will be a cure when the disease has ravaged ones body. Cell damage reversal will be a very long way off and why cryostasis is likely at the moment only viable for people diagnosed in early stages to become frozen.

Whether you need to die first or just go to sleep as it were and then be frozen I don't know. Certainly it was like that in Demolition Man anyway :) and what was that movie...I mean documentary with Mel Gibson? :)
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,812
Possibly not how it worked in this case. Reported here is the girl died of cancer. I presume then the wish is that whatever cure is found in the future it will be one that will get rid of the cancer and afford the patient some quality of life. Presumably your time in cryostasis will be prolonged further than the initial cure for cancer which one would assume will be found to cure it at an early stage rather than one that will be a cure when the disease has ravaged ones body. Cell damage reversal will be a very long way off and why cryostasis is likely at the moment only viable for people diagnosed in early stages to become frozen.

Whether you need to die first or just go to sleep as it were and then be frozen I don't know. Certainly it was like that in Demolition Man anyway :) and what was that movie...I mean documentary with Mel Gibson? :)
I think SiL summed it up perfectly earlier : grief is a terrible thing. IMO cryogenic services are cynically exploiting people's grief.

Even if they manage to reverse their own procedure - which there is no sign of for now - they're supposing someone else will have found a cure for whatever killed the person in the first place. And that someone else again will be able to reverse the damage caused by various illnesses or by age.

It's clearly unrealistic, i.e., a scam.
 
O

Oscurito

37grand eh? For possibly centuries? Or does 37 grand only get you a year or two?

Also, how have they preserved her body since October 17? I believe dead bodies deteriorate rapidly.
There is some stuff that needs to be done initially; e.g. draining off bodily fluids because ice crystals would damage tissue. The blood is replaced with an anti-freeze fluid and the body chilled to -70 C. I'm having trouble finding exact details but it's at least a two stage process.

The storage temperature at the facility in Michigan is -196 C apparently.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top