Re: I hate to tell Mathew this...

Re: I hate to tell Mathew this...

Joined: November 30th, 2005, 4:41 am

February 17th, 2010, 3:58 am #1

Following up on Melody's post from: http://www.network54.com/Forum/291677/m ... athew+this...

If cryonics companies use non-controlled prescriptions that are legally purchased and transported and other aggressive CPS techniques on legally dead bodies where revival does not occur, there are no legal issues at hand in regards to providing support for cryonics patients; although, if revival does occur, then we can invoke the Good Samaritan law without ANY legal consequence to the cryonics company involved or any of the individual team members, and there is no need to worry about defending against a lawsuit. Am I stating your position correctly, Melody?
Quote
Like
Share

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

February 17th, 2010, 1:52 pm #2

Mathew made the remark: "In the real world, CPS turning into CPR equates to practicing medicine."

Mathew apparently lives in fantasyland, rather than the real world. His remark was incorrect, in two very obvious ways: "In the real world," CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) IS (a form of) CPS (cardiopulmonary support), and CPR does not equate to "practicing medicine."

Mathew now tries to distract from his foolish mistakes, by asking if I think, "...if revival does occur, then we can invoke the Good Samaritan law without ANY legal consequence to the cryonics company involved or any of the individual team members..."

This would be true, only if they were going to abandon their cryonics procedures if someone's heart started beating,* but the propofol makes it appear that is not their intention. Mathew claims they don't carry enough propofol to kill anyone, does this equate with they "don't carry enough to keep someone dead"? If that is accurate, it appears that, if the CPR techniques they are applying, at the time of legal death were to restart someone's heart, they fully intend to continue their cryonics efforts on a living, but unconscious, person. In other words, they intend to do exactly as the protocol I have in front of me states, and "maintain unconsciousness." Is that correct, Mathew? Or is SA carrying enough propofol to "keep them down," which would probably equate to enough to "put them down"? Mathew wouldn't want a cryonics team to be accused of doing that, again, would he? Propofol is a sedative; dead people don't need sedation, and cryonics procedures cannot be performed on the living, (whether conscious, or not).

Mathew made several glaringly obvious errors, in the previous thread, which reflect his lack of general knowledge about medicine, and his inability to engage in a rational discussion, regarding this issue. I would think he would have been happy to see that thread locked, so we could move on to a new discussion. I already had the answers I was looking for, regarding the use of propofol, from Mathew, (a staff member of Suspended Animation). Cryonics protocols need to undergo drastic changes, but people like Mathew and most of his peers aren't even capable of having intelligent, well-informed discussions on this topic. Maybe Kent could hire a pastry chef to come up with the solution.

*(Note: I'm now thinking there may also be legal issues with them applying CPR techniques to patients with DNR orders.)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 25th, 2007, 2:45 pm

February 17th, 2010, 2:44 pm #3

Melody, this is your last warning. I realize that you're not the only one who crosses the line here, but you seem to have a chronic disregard for what I have said. Because you do so repeatedly and consistently despite my requests to refrain. The only thing I can conclude is that you have no interest in respecting me or other people who post here. Since polite requests don't work, if you continue in this manner, your posts will be set to moderated status, meaning that they will all require my approval before appearing here. When I say this is your last warning, I mean it from this day forward. If you take a break from posting here, or decide to be less inflammatory for a few weeks or months, then return again to your old ways, this warning still stands. There are no fresh starts.

[ Note: this isn't just about what you posted above, it is in response to the previous thread and others. -J. ]
Last edited by CF_Moderator on February 17th, 2010, 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 1st, 2007, 8:16 am

February 17th, 2010, 7:21 pm #4

Mathew made the remark: "In the real world, CPS turning into CPR equates to practicing medicine."

Mathew apparently lives in fantasyland, rather than the real world. His remark was incorrect, in two very obvious ways: "In the real world," CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) IS (a form of) CPS (cardiopulmonary support), and CPR does not equate to "practicing medicine."

Mathew now tries to distract from his foolish mistakes, by asking if I think, "...if revival does occur, then we can invoke the Good Samaritan law without ANY legal consequence to the cryonics company involved or any of the individual team members..."

This would be true, only if they were going to abandon their cryonics procedures if someone's heart started beating,* but the propofol makes it appear that is not their intention. Mathew claims they don't carry enough propofol to kill anyone, does this equate with they "don't carry enough to keep someone dead"? If that is accurate, it appears that, if the CPR techniques they are applying, at the time of legal death were to restart someone's heart, they fully intend to continue their cryonics efforts on a living, but unconscious, person. In other words, they intend to do exactly as the protocol I have in front of me states, and "maintain unconsciousness." Is that correct, Mathew? Or is SA carrying enough propofol to "keep them down," which would probably equate to enough to "put them down"? Mathew wouldn't want a cryonics team to be accused of doing that, again, would he? Propofol is a sedative; dead people don't need sedation, and cryonics procedures cannot be performed on the living, (whether conscious, or not).

Mathew made several glaringly obvious errors, in the previous thread, which reflect his lack of general knowledge about medicine, and his inability to engage in a rational discussion, regarding this issue. I would think he would have been happy to see that thread locked, so we could move on to a new discussion. I already had the answers I was looking for, regarding the use of propofol, from Mathew, (a staff member of Suspended Animation). Cryonics protocols need to undergo drastic changes, but people like Mathew and most of his peers aren't even capable of having intelligent, well-informed discussions on this topic. Maybe Kent could hire a pastry chef to come up with the solution.

*(Note: I'm now thinking there may also be legal issues with them applying CPR techniques to patients with DNR orders.)
On July 16, 2009 the FDA issued a regulation concerning usage propofol, which says in part:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - July 16, 2009
For use as an anesthetic agent, propofol should be used ONLY BY PROFESSIONALS TRAINED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF GENERAL ANESTHESIA. For sedation of intubated, mechanically ventilated patients in the Intensive Care Unit, propofol should be administered ONLY BY PERSONS SKILLED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS.

The FDA regulation is clear. Since July 16, 2009 Propofol can be used only by:

1. ” professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia”, or
2. “By persons skilled in the management of critically ill patients”.

The 7/16/2009 FDA regulations do not make any exceptions for “research facilities, or cemeteries”.
Sorry FD. Case closed. Of course, you still may use it in Paraguay to your heart's content.
Quote
Like
Share

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

February 17th, 2010, 11:03 pm #5

Mathew made the remark: "In the real world, CPS turning into CPR equates to practicing medicine."

Mathew apparently lives in fantasyland, rather than the real world. His remark was incorrect, in two very obvious ways: "In the real world," CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) IS (a form of) CPS (cardiopulmonary support), and CPR does not equate to "practicing medicine."

Mathew now tries to distract from his foolish mistakes, by asking if I think, "...if revival does occur, then we can invoke the Good Samaritan law without ANY legal consequence to the cryonics company involved or any of the individual team members..."

This would be true, only if they were going to abandon their cryonics procedures if someone's heart started beating,* but the propofol makes it appear that is not their intention. Mathew claims they don't carry enough propofol to kill anyone, does this equate with they "don't carry enough to keep someone dead"? If that is accurate, it appears that, if the CPR techniques they are applying, at the time of legal death were to restart someone's heart, they fully intend to continue their cryonics efforts on a living, but unconscious, person. In other words, they intend to do exactly as the protocol I have in front of me states, and "maintain unconsciousness." Is that correct, Mathew? Or is SA carrying enough propofol to "keep them down," which would probably equate to enough to "put them down"? Mathew wouldn't want a cryonics team to be accused of doing that, again, would he? Propofol is a sedative; dead people don't need sedation, and cryonics procedures cannot be performed on the living, (whether conscious, or not).

Mathew made several glaringly obvious errors, in the previous thread, which reflect his lack of general knowledge about medicine, and his inability to engage in a rational discussion, regarding this issue. I would think he would have been happy to see that thread locked, so we could move on to a new discussion. I already had the answers I was looking for, regarding the use of propofol, from Mathew, (a staff member of Suspended Animation). Cryonics protocols need to undergo drastic changes, but people like Mathew and most of his peers aren't even capable of having intelligent, well-informed discussions on this topic. Maybe Kent could hire a pastry chef to come up with the solution.

*(Note: I'm now thinking there may also be legal issues with them applying CPR techniques to patients with DNR orders.)
Melody, would you mind giving us your answer to the following? We had George's and it was sadly deficient. Besides, we all would like to know if you are being part of the solution to the dilemma, or merely just trying to cause trouble for cryonicists.

"Does Melody WANT legally dead bodies to reawaken while they are being processed for just the opposite, to be cryopreserved? If not, what's the problem with propofol, and WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO THE "DILEMMA" YOU BROUGHT UP? And show me where any law is being broken by cemeteries or research organizations using it on dead bodies?"

Thank you in advance,

FD
Quote
Like
Share

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

February 17th, 2010, 11:05 pm #6

On July 16, 2009 the FDA issued a regulation concerning usage propofol, which says in part:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - July 16, 2009
For use as an anesthetic agent, propofol should be used ONLY BY PROFESSIONALS TRAINED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF GENERAL ANESTHESIA. For sedation of intubated, mechanically ventilated patients in the Intensive Care Unit, propofol should be administered ONLY BY PERSONS SKILLED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS.

The FDA regulation is clear. Since July 16, 2009 Propofol can be used only by:

1. ” professionals trained in the administration of general anesthesia”, or
2. “By persons skilled in the management of critically ill patients”.

The 7/16/2009 FDA regulations do not make any exceptions for “research facilities, or cemeteries”.
Sorry FD. Case closed. Of course, you still may use it in Paraguay to your heart's content.
Thank you, George, for ceasing to willfully try to mislead us. Presumably the material you quoted came from somewhere; you did not have to cite a reference for it, I guess, because your unblemished record gives us all confidence in your credibility, therefore we need no such thing? (Paraguay!) Regardless of its source, it says right in it: "For sedation of intubated, mechanically ventilated patients in the Intensive Care Unit".

When cryonic operations are carried out in hospital Intensive Care Units on "patients" who are no longer legally alive, perhaps there will be some valid concern regarding what drugs are permissible to use on them. Until then, here is where you can find in utter detail that would put Melody to sleep, the legal basis on which the FDA operates and what they do and do not regulate:

http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformatio ... efault.htm

This link gives material specifically related to drugs:

http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformatio ... efault.htm

Anyone reading the above will learn that the things the FDA regulates have to do with their use on living humans primarily. Some veterinary areas are covered, but are focused on the effect of drugs etc. given to animals that in turn are eaten by humans, as to the safety issues resulting for humans (live ones, who can eat). Perhaps because humans rarely eat their dead, there is no mention at all of any FDA oversight of what is administered to dead bodies.

There is a search field on those pages. You can type in "cryonics" all day and get zero results. The FDA does not regulate anything having to do with cryonics.

That seems to leave any existing regulation of drug use on cryopatients or any other cryonic activity up to other governmental entities, such as the individual states. Each has its own take on that, or lack of same.

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 5th, 2009, 12:29 am

February 17th, 2010, 11:40 pm #7

Melody, would you mind giving us your answer to the following? We had George's and it was sadly deficient. Besides, we all would like to know if you are being part of the solution to the dilemma, or merely just trying to cause trouble for cryonicists.

"Does Melody WANT legally dead bodies to reawaken while they are being processed for just the opposite, to be cryopreserved? If not, what's the problem with propofol, and WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO THE "DILEMMA" YOU BROUGHT UP? And show me where any law is being broken by cemeteries or research organizations using it on dead bodies?"

Thank you in advance,

FD
Why do people keep asking the same questions over and over ?

Don't you get it?

Melody's position is quite clear to me.
It's other people, seeming to twist things out of context, and splitting hairs, that's confusing me.
And don't bother asking for specific examples so you can start the same game.
What for?
As it's been stated before, is this all this site is good for?
How about the site mission be restated in big bold letters somewhere obvious?
Quote
Like
Share

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

February 18th, 2010, 2:20 am #8

Why do people keep asking the same questions over and over? Because some people keep refusing to answer them, over and over, when they intrinsically demand answers.

Melody's position: rather clear to me also, though it may vary from yours, but I'd prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity for her to explain how it can be that she claims to have the best interest of cryonics in mind.

If you believe that she has answered the question in my post above, and that I have missed it, please cite the link to the message where she did.

Otherwise, what do you think is her position on it?

All I have seen so far is the promulgation of a "dilemma" (her term) for which she has provided no solution, innuendoes of alleged illegal activities at cryo orgs, no evidence that anything currently being done at any cryo orgs violates any laws or regulations, that there would be no "dilemma" were she not crusading and grandstanding, and that due to all of that, she could not possibly have the best interest of cryonics in mind. I'm still open to being persuaded otherwise, by her explaining how cryopreservation can possibly be done if the patient does not stay "dead", if she thinks it is a good thing if a person who signed up for cryonics and executed a DNR (often due to terminal conditions) "comes back to life" and, why propofol is objectionable to ensure against that and what alternative would she use, if any, and if not, why not.

As to the purpose of Cold Filter, look up, not down, next time you are at the home page. It says: "The Cold Filter - where we distill, extract, and retrieve an intoxicating blend from the data stream of other cryonics-related outlets, preserving the resulting brew for further examination and full-flavored information consumption. Topics will include, but not be limited to: cryonics, cryobiology, life extension, bioethics, transformative humanism, and other issues." That to me means simply "it's for discussion". I've been using it for that nearly since its inception.

Cheers,

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 1st, 2007, 8:16 am

February 18th, 2010, 3:30 am #9

Thank you, George, for ceasing to willfully try to mislead us. Presumably the material you quoted came from somewhere; you did not have to cite a reference for it, I guess, because your unblemished record gives us all confidence in your credibility, therefore we need no such thing? (Paraguay!) Regardless of its source, it says right in it: "For sedation of intubated, mechanically ventilated patients in the Intensive Care Unit".

When cryonic operations are carried out in hospital Intensive Care Units on "patients" who are no longer legally alive, perhaps there will be some valid concern regarding what drugs are permissible to use on them. Until then, here is where you can find in utter detail that would put Melody to sleep, the legal basis on which the FDA operates and what they do and do not regulate:

http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformatio ... efault.htm

This link gives material specifically related to drugs:

http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformatio ... efault.htm

Anyone reading the above will learn that the things the FDA regulates have to do with their use on living humans primarily. Some veterinary areas are covered, but are focused on the effect of drugs etc. given to animals that in turn are eaten by humans, as to the safety issues resulting for humans (live ones, who can eat). Perhaps because humans rarely eat their dead, there is no mention at all of any FDA oversight of what is administered to dead bodies.

There is a search field on those pages. You can type in "cryonics" all day and get zero results. The FDA does not regulate anything having to do with cryonics.

That seems to leave any existing regulation of drug use on cryopatients or any other cryonic activity up to other governmental entities, such as the individual states. Each has its own take on that, or lack of same.

FD
As anyone else might have guessed, the source is the FDA web site itself. FDA, not FDFUD. Well, you selectively quoted restriction usage number 2, but totally ignored restriction reference to usage # 1, which is: “For use as an anesthetic agent”. Which is precisely why SA uses it, as “an anesthetic agent”, or as some of the cryo “professionals” so succinctly stated: “To keep them down!”
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 1st, 2007, 8:16 am

February 18th, 2010, 8:24 am #10

Why do people keep asking the same questions over and over? Because some people keep refusing to answer them, over and over, when they intrinsically demand answers.

Melody's position: rather clear to me also, though it may vary from yours, but I'd prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity for her to explain how it can be that she claims to have the best interest of cryonics in mind.

If you believe that she has answered the question in my post above, and that I have missed it, please cite the link to the message where she did.

Otherwise, what do you think is her position on it?

All I have seen so far is the promulgation of a "dilemma" (her term) for which she has provided no solution, innuendoes of alleged illegal activities at cryo orgs, no evidence that anything currently being done at any cryo orgs violates any laws or regulations, that there would be no "dilemma" were she not crusading and grandstanding, and that due to all of that, she could not possibly have the best interest of cryonics in mind. I'm still open to being persuaded otherwise, by her explaining how cryopreservation can possibly be done if the patient does not stay "dead", if she thinks it is a good thing if a person who signed up for cryonics and executed a DNR (often due to terminal conditions) "comes back to life" and, why propofol is objectionable to ensure against that and what alternative would she use, if any, and if not, why not.

As to the purpose of Cold Filter, look up, not down, next time you are at the home page. It says: "The Cold Filter - where we distill, extract, and retrieve an intoxicating blend from the data stream of other cryonics-related outlets, preserving the resulting brew for further examination and full-flavored information consumption. Topics will include, but not be limited to: cryonics, cryobiology, life extension, bioethics, transformative humanism, and other issues." That to me means simply "it's for discussion". I've been using it for that nearly since its inception.

Cheers,

FD
FD: "Why do people keep asking the same questions over
and over? Because some people keep refusing to answer them,
over and over"

You got it exactly right. Some people make up weird claims, and when challenged to support it, being unable to support their claim, they just resort to bizarre ad hominem.

Here is one for you again, to justify your claim: Show me where there is an exception in law or in regulations allowing research organizations and cemeteries any exemptions from that requirement (using anesthetic agents, such as propofol) to "to keep them down"? It is bizarre, even for you, to claim that cemeteries need to inject some anesthetic drugs into corpses.

Answer if you can, or not if you cannot. We know you cannot!

Quote
Like
Share