This is a response to the following article which was just reposted by Aschwin de Wolf:
http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/20 ... ryonics%29
But of course the patients are dead, as anyone can plainly see. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous. Our terminology page is here: http://www.oregoncryo.com/terminology.html. The patients are not just dead in the sense of organism and cellular non-viability. They are also dead in the sense that current medical technology cannot possibly revive them. They are dead according to ALL known accepted definitions of death. In fact, the only way to claim they are not dead is to invent a new definition of death. So, a new definition was actually invented and invoked: Information-theoretic Death. If you have to invent a new definition of a word, then it's a pretty good sign that you are actually just misusing the word. It's perfectly fine -- and far more accurate -- to simply call them dead.
There can still be potential for revival. Just because they are dead does not mean they are locked into that state forever. The general public already understands that death is frequently temporary. It's common knowledge that one can be dead for a few minutes in cardiac arrest or even for an hour in cold water prior to revival. They were dead, and now they are alive. People have no problem with that concept. Just because a patient is dead does not mean we give up on them or treat them any less carefully.
Finally, just because we call them patients does not mean they fit all the same criteria as hospital patients. Cryonics is not an extension of medical care. It's fundamentally unique and different. It would be circular reasoning to claim that patients are receiving medical care just because we have decided to call them patients.
1 post • Page 1 of 1