>The only negative attitude I know of in cryonics towards >medicine is that of Charles Platt and, in a different way, Bob >Ettinger. As I understand it Bob sees much of medicine as it >has been applied to cryonics as gilding the lily, superfluous, >or not worth the cost, or not affordable. If I have any of this >wrong (vis a vis Bobs position) Im sure hell correct me.
In response to this, and to some other recent comments by others, a few reminders:
As any fool can plainly see, better is better, but something is better than nothing. Claims should not be exaggerated, but criticisms should not be exaggerated either. Even a straight freeze is far from obliteration. Many scientists believe that (with certain possible exceptions such as black holes) there is a law of conservation of information, so that any previous configuration of matter might in principle one day be restored. (Yes, there remain unresolved philosophical problems.)
Regarding "medicine" and medical professionals, there are many problems. They worry about legal vulnerability, and about their insurers, and about their oversight committees, and about the FDA, and about peer pressure and public relations. Even a dying patient with no other option often cannot get permission to use an experimental drug or procedure. Our best bet currently, in most cases, is to get informal cooperation from hospital personnel, and to use their familiar forms including the donor form and the advance directive.
Long ago Alcor claimed "state of the art" procedures. What a laugh. It is a platitude of cryobiology that (for best effect) different procedures must be used for different organs or different tissues and different circumstances. "State of the art" would really mean several teams of surgeons and cryobiologists dividing the job. Don't hold your breath.
Darwin likes or liked to poke fun at my phrase "our friends of the future," implying that I didn't care about quality of procedure or reducing the burden on the future. Again, just use common sense. We do want to reduce the burden on the future as much as possible, but we also want to seize whatever chance there may be using our currently available resources. Don't sacrifice the good for want of the best.
As for the claim (by Melody and others, if I remember correctly), that cryonics is a failure and even "corrupt," again, use common sense and look at the record. Yes, the movement remains tiny, but growth in membership and patients in recent years has been trending up. At the Cryonics Institute, if I remember correctly, roughly half our members and half our patients have come in the last five years or so, whereas CI is about 33 years old.
As for "corruption," this is just a vicious lie as applied to CI and probably, as best I can judge, for the most part to Alcor also and to ACS. Alcor has churned its leadership and made serious blunders, but most of its people are trying to do the right thing for the right reasons, most of the time. At CI, and I think also at ACS, there have been no scandals whatever and continuing honest effort to improve, with demonstrated results.
Suspended Animation is another story. No doubt Saul and Bill think they are doing something that will be of use to them personally down the road, but aside from the problems Melody has harped upon, Saul and Bill will eventually be gone, and the ability of SA to survive as a for-profit company seems questionable to say the least. SA may also impair recruitment because of the implication that without that large added expense your chances are much smaller.