Australia Meets the 21st Century

Australia Meets the 21st Century

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

August 16th, 2009, 5:34 am #1


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8200931.stm

Australian man wins right to die

A court in Australia has ruled that a quadriplegic man who wants to die can tell his carers to stop feeding him.

The judge in the western city of Perth said the nursing home would not be held criminally responsible.

In a statement, Christian Rossiter said he could not perform any basic human functions and wanted to die.

The ruling sets a legal precedent in Australia, where assisting someone to take their own life can be punishable by life in prison.

Western Australia's highest judge, Wayne Martin, said the Brightwater Care Group would not be criminally responsible if it stopped feeding and hydrating Mr Rossiter.

Judge Martin said Mr Rossiter was not terminally ill or dying and was capable of making an informed decision about his treatment.

'Living hell'

"I am unable to blow my nose," Mr Rossiter said.

"I am unable to wipe the tears from my eyes," said the former stockbroker and outdoor adventurer.

He made a public plea last week to be allowed to end his life which he described as a "living hell".

"I have no fear of death - just pain. I only fear pain," he said.

Mr Rossiter is severely paralysed after separate accidents in which he fell from a building and was hit by a car while riding his bicycle.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

August 16th, 2009, 4:11 pm #2

Has the man even heard of cryonics?

Would he really choose certain death over possible rejuvenation? Someone talk him out of this insanity!

Now that he has the chance to die under controlled circumstances, he can get the best possible cryonics treatment. He could be alive, laughing and playing football in a few decades.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

August 16th, 2009, 5:59 pm #3

"Has the man even heard of cryonics?

Would he really choose certain death over possible rejuvenation? Someone talk him out of this insanity!"


I still don't understand why some cryonicists feel the need to inflict their own desires upon others. If you want others to respect your wishes, it's only fair that you should respect theirs. If Mr. Rossiter was aware of Luke's post he might say, "That Luke fellow is going straight to hell, with this cryonics nonsense. He needs to receive his last rites, and prepare to meet his maker, when he's in my situation." And, the funny thing is, neither one can prove the other wrong. (This was just a hypothetical situation, I have no idea what Mr. Rossiter's religious beliefs are, I'm simply intolerant of intolerance. )

I have not only heard of cryonics, but have worked in the industry. Being familiar with the level of patient care given at remote locations, and not being willing to relocate to Arizona or Michigan, I'd rather be cremated than to fund what I feel is some very expensive incompetence that probably only results in additional damage that is beyond repair. (I'm not a big believer in future extreme nanotech repairs that can restore a brain that has been abused past a certain point. Others may have differing opinions. Regardless, everyone has the right to choose for him/her self.)

"Now that he has the chance to die under controlled circumstances, he can get the best possible cryonics treatment."

From whom?

"He could be alive, laughing and playing football in a few decades."

Not likely, in my opinion. That's probably what the Alcorians were saying, 30 years ago, and I don't believe the quality of cryonics patient care, today, even begins to approach the level of care that existed in conventional medicine's hypothermic procedures, back then.


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

August 16th, 2009, 8:16 pm #4

I highly doubt this guy has even thought about cryonics in a serious light. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, particularly if it is as you insinuate, that his only reason for doing so is that he refuses to support certain particular organizations on principle because he doesn't think that they can do a good enough job because they are incompetent and nanotech is never going to get that good.

Sure, I'd be tolerant of that.

What I am not tolerant of, and refuse to be tolerant of, is the rampant deathism and defeatism that permeates this culture like a plague that keeps people from taking cryonics seriously as an option. Cryonics should be the first thing everyone thinks of when death is approaching, not the last thing.

As to who should do it, has it ever occured to anyone that hospitals could (and should) be doing this? There's a hospital everywhere you go, and it is chock full of dying people and qualified staff. If we are serious about saving people, the hospitals should be willing to do the procedures necessary to give them, potentially, another shot at life. This could be big money for the hospitals. I bet if it could be covered by health insurance (or everyone had life insurance, or special "cryonics insurance") the rate of cryopreservations would shoot through the roof. Doctors would be talking people (and their families) into it right and left.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

August 16th, 2009, 9:14 pm #5

... or "cryoneers" if you like word play.

Cryonics is speculative-- but there are real people out there with real medical problems, including some of us-- and hospitals treat real problems not speculative ones. There ought to be a few teaching hospitals that take on cryonics-- to be sure. However to say that cryonics should be the first thing eveyrone things of when death approaches is absurd.

It seems to me you're not born american. Is that true?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

August 17th, 2009, 12:16 am #6

I highly doubt this guy has even thought about cryonics in a serious light. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, particularly if it is as you insinuate, that his only reason for doing so is that he refuses to support certain particular organizations on principle because he doesn't think that they can do a good enough job because they are incompetent and nanotech is never going to get that good.

Sure, I'd be tolerant of that.

What I am not tolerant of, and refuse to be tolerant of, is the rampant deathism and defeatism that permeates this culture like a plague that keeps people from taking cryonics seriously as an option. Cryonics should be the first thing everyone thinks of when death is approaching, not the last thing.

As to who should do it, has it ever occured to anyone that hospitals could (and should) be doing this? There's a hospital everywhere you go, and it is chock full of dying people and qualified staff. If we are serious about saving people, the hospitals should be willing to do the procedures necessary to give them, potentially, another shot at life. This could be big money for the hospitals. I bet if it could be covered by health insurance (or everyone had life insurance, or special "cryonics insurance") the rate of cryopreservations would shoot through the roof. Doctors would be talking people (and their families) into it right and left.
Luke: "I'd be happy to be proved wrong, particularly if it is as you insinuate, that his only reason for doing so is that he refuses to support certain particular organizations on principle because he doesn't think that they can do a good enough job because they are incompetent and nanotech is never going to get that good."

????? I didn't even begin to insinuate that was Mr. Rossiter's reason for not considering cryopreservation. I stated, quite clearly, that was MY opinion, as a medical professional who has worked in the cryonics industry.

Luke: "Cryonics should be the first thing everyone thinks of when death is approaching, not the last thing."

That is simply your opinion, and you are going to have to accept the fact that only an extremely small percentage of the world's population would be likely to agree with you. According to David B. Barrett, only about 16% of the world's population is "non-religious," and that about half of those are considered to be "theistic."http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html I'm sure most people believe making peace with God, should be "the first thing everyone thinks of when death is approaching."

Luke: "As to who should do it, has it ever occured to anyone that hospitals could (and should) be doing this?"

It's occurred to many, many people, before you, and it's been discussed on this forum, many times. With all the questionable activities associated with the cryonics industry, cryopreservation is unlikely to be "coming to a hospital, near you," anytime soon.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

August 17th, 2009, 6:11 am #7

You have an infuriating way of mixing "practicalities" in whenever I try to point out what is right and wrong on an idealistic scale. Then when I try to point out what is and isn't practical you get all huffy about how it's supposedly not right or ideal... It's like we are talking on different wavelengths, eternally destined to disagree. Classic personality type difference I suppose, if you follow that sort of thing... Which means I'm probably being just as impossible from your perspective. [sigh]

Anyway, if hospitals are better at cryonics than cryonics agencies, obviously it should be hospitals doing it. Whatever it takes, we should be working to get it into hospitals, one sure slow step at a time. Or maybe we need to get better cryonics agencies. Whatever needs done, it needs done... Just sitting here and complaining isn't going to change things. We're talking about life and death.

Religious people are typically pro-life, not pro-death. They want to see life continue, not end prematurely. Making peace with God is important to them of course, but being cryopreserved versus burial has nothing to do with this. In fact, you are encouraged to make peace with God even when you are not threatened with death. In any case, the matter of being at peace with God comes from a totally different context than what I was talking about, which is what to practically do about death as it approaches. Think of it from a societal rather than a personal perspective for a moment. Do we try to do all in our power as a modern, technologically advanced people, to prevent death -- or do we surrender to it like a bunch of helpless primitives? Would you rather live in society A or society B?

I apologize if I improperly used the word "insinuate"... It really sounded (to me) like you thought this person probably had just as good of reasons as you for opting out of cryonics. I happen to think your reasons are inadequate when closely examined -- cryonics remains the right thing to do, regardless of whether you can find a good organization to do it for you -- but I can respect that you have at least given it decent consideration, unlike 99% of people in today's society.

Your talk about the right to choose sounds good, but in context it makes no sense. Hardly anyone even knows the relavent facts of cryonics. Doctors aren't recommending it, hardly anyone reputable is. And if you want it you have to pay for it yourself. In fact you have to plan for it way ahead of time. Medical insurance won't pay for it, you have to use life insurance. Hospitals won't do it, you'll have to hire a private team. The list of barriers to acceptance that go far beyond personal choice goes on and on.

This is not choice! This is marginalization of an extreme nature.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

August 17th, 2009, 6:54 am #8

... or "cryoneers" if you like word play.

Cryonics is speculative-- but there are real people out there with real medical problems, including some of us-- and hospitals treat real problems not speculative ones. There ought to be a few teaching hospitals that take on cryonics-- to be sure. However to say that cryonics should be the first thing eveyrone things of when death approaches is absurd.

It seems to me you're not born american. Is that true?
Is death not a problem? I'll admit that cryonics is a speculative solution (to a point -- we actually do know it stops decay, we just don't know if the damage it does is 100% reversible). But death (legal death, deanimation, whatever you call that thing that happens before you rot and become truly dead) is certainly not a speculative problem.

If people aren't thinking of cryonics, they aren't thinking of solutions to the problem. They are treating death like it is not a problem at all.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

August 17th, 2009, 7:50 am #9

Another ordinary problem to solve before "death" is "organ transplant".... here are some links on the owada freezer....

quote
It works like a microwave oven in reverse. Inside the freezer the object being frozen is zapped with a strong magnetic field. The field keeps the water molecules in liquid form while their temperature drops. When the field is switched off, the object is instantly frozen, without time for the formation of ice crystals. These crystals normally rip apart organic cells.
unquote

source
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... cells.aspx

google search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ow ... f&oq=&aqi=

cryonet search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ow ... f&oq=&aqi=

alcor search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ow ... f&oq=&aqi=

My comment--
If this works like it says it does, this does an end run around Kent's formula X, and "vitrification". We could probably start a very credible new cryonics company based on this one machine alone. Put something like this together with Maxim's cryonics emergency protocols-- and you might have "real cryonics".
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

August 17th, 2009, 12:48 pm #10

You have an infuriating way of mixing "practicalities" in whenever I try to point out what is right and wrong on an idealistic scale. Then when I try to point out what is and isn't practical you get all huffy about how it's supposedly not right or ideal... It's like we are talking on different wavelengths, eternally destined to disagree. Classic personality type difference I suppose, if you follow that sort of thing... Which means I'm probably being just as impossible from your perspective. [sigh]

Anyway, if hospitals are better at cryonics than cryonics agencies, obviously it should be hospitals doing it. Whatever it takes, we should be working to get it into hospitals, one sure slow step at a time. Or maybe we need to get better cryonics agencies. Whatever needs done, it needs done... Just sitting here and complaining isn't going to change things. We're talking about life and death.

Religious people are typically pro-life, not pro-death. They want to see life continue, not end prematurely. Making peace with God is important to them of course, but being cryopreserved versus burial has nothing to do with this. In fact, you are encouraged to make peace with God even when you are not threatened with death. In any case, the matter of being at peace with God comes from a totally different context than what I was talking about, which is what to practically do about death as it approaches. Think of it from a societal rather than a personal perspective for a moment. Do we try to do all in our power as a modern, technologically advanced people, to prevent death -- or do we surrender to it like a bunch of helpless primitives? Would you rather live in society A or society B?

I apologize if I improperly used the word "insinuate"... It really sounded (to me) like you thought this person probably had just as good of reasons as you for opting out of cryonics. I happen to think your reasons are inadequate when closely examined -- cryonics remains the right thing to do, regardless of whether you can find a good organization to do it for you -- but I can respect that you have at least given it decent consideration, unlike 99% of people in today's society.

Your talk about the right to choose sounds good, but in context it makes no sense. Hardly anyone even knows the relavent facts of cryonics. Doctors aren't recommending it, hardly anyone reputable is. And if you want it you have to pay for it yourself. In fact you have to plan for it way ahead of time. Medical insurance won't pay for it, you have to use life insurance. Hospitals won't do it, you'll have to hire a private team. The list of barriers to acceptance that go far beyond personal choice goes on and on.

This is not choice! This is marginalization of an extreme nature.
Luke-- Idealistically, cryoneers are like test-pilots-- not missionaries.

Luke, I'm the idealistic one if anyone. You can't take that away from me. I established the ideal of a cryonicist as a cryoneer some time ago. A cryoneer is a pioneer-- in cryonics. Idealistically we're like test pilots of a new aircraft. Only a select few "select themselves" for the experimental time travel mission. YOu've bought into the false notion that cryonics is "just a medical science" and that therefore we ought to go around rescuing everyone as missionaries. Not so-- not based on lack of idealism but rather based on the idea that cryonics is not a proven medical mission. It's not that we're not idealistic, it's that your ideal is misplace. You need a new ideal.

As for hospiitals, only teaching hospitals of the highest calibre that run well controlled experiments should take on cryonics-- which has a big potential downside as can be seen from all the problems in cryonics. I would have expected at least a few teaching hospitals to accomodate cryonics by now-- but your phony ideal that alll hospitals ought to accept cryonics into their regimen is strictly loony tunes. No regular hostpital under the pressures hospitals have these days are going to take on a highly experimental mission like cryonics. They don't need the headaches. But once again, we're specail. We're not like other people. YOu can't expect other people to be like us.

NOT signing up for cryonics has nothing whatsoever to do with "surrendering to death". Even if you're perfectly cryopreserved, you 'JIS MIGHT BE PERFECTLY DEAD. We do NOT know. This is OUR "religion"-- it MUST be a "religious belief" for NOW becaues we do not know and CANNOT know for certain what our status is. That's the POINT of cryonics-- to hopefully find out later that we're NOT perfectly dead. We say "dead dead".

You say cryonics is the "right" thing to do. There's a cryonicist who thinks just like you do-- Dave Pizer. He's got plenty posted to cryonet where he claims that cryonics is the right thing to do. You and he should get together. YOu would have lots of laughs and stories to share over people NOT doing the right thing by NOT signing up for cryonics. Dave runs the VENTURists, which you can join. Dave is wrong, in my view. So is Brian Wowk wrong. And now, you are wrong. It's okay to be wrong. But if too many people are wrong, it gets pretty dicey. Maxim and me and right.

You sound almost like an experienced cryonicist like Dave Pizer-- not a newcomer. I'll keep an eye on your posts to see if I can determine that over the next span of time. I've never met you and you have no web page. There's nothiing to verify that you're real. Your picture might not be real. Your arguments sound a little too passionate and narrow for someon who claims to be new to cryonics. Actually, and here's the kicker--- You actually "sound Jewish" because Jewish cryonicists argue just as YOU do.... and Christian cryonicists like me and Maxim argue as we do. Are you Jewish?

Quote
Like
Share