Cryonics, Cynics and Prophetics

Cryonics is “the practice of freezing a person who has died of a disease in hopes of restoring life at some future time when a cure for the disease has been developed.” The currently irreversible practice of lowering the temperature of clinically dead “clients” who wish to be brought back to life in the future at the advent of new medical methods that will cure or treat a condition, disease or otherwise crucial issue that was impacting upon their body. There in lies the ethical questions posed when the subject is researched; Can a dead person be “raised” and still have his soul intact? Is it proper to house a body indefinitely without a guarantee of re-awakening?
The subject may seem cut and dry. What arrangements made post (or prearranged) mortem of a body remains (sic) in control of the person or family of the person. It should stand to reason that a new medical procedure such as cryonics could be an option. Yet there are two things that seem to parry the statement. Ben Best, the Director of the Cryonics Institute avers that cryonics is controversial in two main ways.
“(1) Cryonics cannot be proven to work or proven not to work until some time in the future. Cryonics is dependent on a future technology, and there is no guarantee that the future can create the required technology.
(2) Most people who seek cryonics do not simply want a procedure comparable to heroic surgery. Cryonicists are usually people who want a procedure which can transport them to a future technology capable of restoring youth, and extending youthful life-span hundreds or thousands of years or more.” (http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/cryiss.html#definition)
The questions this raises is that if you, as a medical doctor, promise to re-animate a patient, fix whatever ailment that was previously incurable and then discharge said patient, what does one do from there? Legally, the patient had to have been dead before freezing, thus his assets, social security and else have been forfeited as per the laws that oversee estates and/or social security. What does one do at this point? Who is liable to the patient? These issues will need to be examined.
Also, what occurs if in the process of thawing, the body is injured? Is that malpractice or is that desecration of a corpse? In what way will the body be taken from the morgue? I suspect that most countries have laws on the handling of dead bodies.
On the other angle, what of the needed medical care after the thawing? If the patient died of a then-incurable ailment, what certainty does the doctor have in curing the patient in the future? Such speculation may have social and legal ramifications. If patient’s bodies are held with the indefinite promise to be re-animated once the cure for their particular disease is found, to what extent is the doctor held to find such a cure or to thaw in a fair and speedy manner? Is there a warranty that can be applied?
Many cryonics centers defend their practices firmly. One such facility, run by Alcor Life Extension Foundation seems to take to their pursuits sternly and are quick to defend themselves.
“The people working on organ preservation routinely load and unload organs with cryoprotectant levels similar to what we are using…It is certainly true that our patients are badly injured. So badly injured (by disease usually) that current medical practice has no way to extend their lives (at least with any quality of life).” (http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/MedicalEthicsInCryonics.html)
Though the Alcor folk may stand by their operation, they seem a bit cavalier taking money from patients when Alcor openly states “, all the king's nanotechnology will not bring back a patient's memories and personality beyond some point. We try to do as little damage to the patient as possible, guided by our experience in recovering total body washout animals.” So as it stands, they promise to bring back to life their paying (dead) customers on the notion that they have researched and experimented on animals, and agree with naysayers on their lack of scientific background as to the limits they can attest to their abilities. (http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/MedicalEthicsInCryonics.html)
Another ethical question is that of whether or not such a procedure, if made widespread, will become compulsory. Given that there are laws against suicide, assisted or otherwise, can the state require your body to be cronically interred until a “cure” becomes available? What of the wishes of the departed? Can a religious body intercede? If the process of cryonics proves to be a rational delivery of life-after-death, are all deaths then considered repairable? Even of “natural causes? Can the cryonics firm choose not to re-animate a patient if there has been a failure of the responsible party to make the necessary payments; a sort of blackmail or legal lien on life itself?
Many of our life-to-death deals will come into question, both social and legal. What becomes of a marriage if there is no limit on the extension of a beloved’s life? Are you married indefinitely? Can you seek a divorce from a deceased? Real estate handling and co-signatures become tempestuous. “Wake up and sign this paper Honey”! Heirs everywhere beware, your uncle may need that suit back at some point! I cannot imagine the impact on wills, contracts, estates or even the responsibility of parenthood. If a person dies, yet is frozen, does he loose custody of a child? Is he retroactively charged for childcare until he/she is woken? Alas, the worst yet. Is a person held accountable for their actions if they had died yet re-animated? Is a soldier indebted to serve out his remaining service period if he is killed in action, only to be given a second chance at life?
These questions must be worked out morally, politically and legally before the practice of cryonics gets out of hand. The turn of the phrase “A second lease in life” certainly will carry a different allusion and weight in that near future.