Slashdot Mirror
Terminally Ill Teen Won Historic Ruling To Preserve Body (bbc.com)
A teenage girl has been cryogenically frozen in the hope of being revived at a time when her cancer might be cured. The terminally ill 14-year-old girl from London won a legal fight to be frozen after she died. After her death in October, the girl's remains were transported to a cryonic facility in the United States. From a report: The girl, who was terminally ill with a rare cancer, was supported by her mother in her wish to be cryogenically preserved -- but not by her father. She wrote to the judge explaining that she wanted "to live longer" and did not want "to be buried underground." A High Court judge ruled that the girl's mother should be allowed to decide what happened to the body. The details of her case have just been released. "I have been asked to explain why I want this unusual thing done. I am only 14 years old and I don't want to die but I know I am going to die. I think being cryopreserved gives me a chance to be cured and woken up -- even in hundreds of years' time. I want to live and live longer and I think that in the future they may find a cure for my cancer and wake me up. I want to have this chance. This is my wish," the girl wrote. The judge, Mr Justice Peter Jackson, visited the girl in hospital and said he was moved by "the valiant way in which she was facing her predicament." His ruling, he said, was not about the rights or wrongs of cryonics but about a dispute between parents over the disposal of their daughter's body.
Is there a Mr I C Wiener here?
They paid for it so why is this news? No different then a custody battle.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Regardless of the girl's wishes or the scientific viability of cryo, it must be absolutely awful to have your parents arguing about what to do with your body after you die. Even worse knowing that one of them is against it, she must have some feeling that her father doesn't want to see her again.
For the sake of argument, suppose this is possible.
You will wake up about 5 generations beyond where you are now. Assuming her death doesn't end the bloodline altogether, the relatives she has in 100 years will have no real familial connection to her. Everyone and everything that defines her sense of happiness now will likely be dead and gone or so evolved that it is unrecognizable (like tech and hobbies).
Then you have the cultural change. Imagine being frozen in 1900 and waking up in 2016. The whole social order is different. You likely are deeply at odds with it culturally.
So odds are you just wake up a social pariah, with no skills, in an alien social order with no friends and family. Heck, you might not even speak the lingua franca of that age. For all we know, Mandarin could replace English by 2116.
People imagine it like a movie where you wake up in a shiny, accepting utopia and you just go like Ender to the stars where no one knows your past or cares. The reality is probably more akin to you becoming a ward of the state for years, being looked down on except as a curiosity.
1. They may, and they may not. Time will tell.
2. Again, they may hate us, or they may not. Hell, they might worship the cyborged head of Bill Gates. Again, time will tell.
3. Cryo may not work NOW, because we lack the tech to successfully reverse it. Cryo **may** be the best currently-available method of maintaining structure as much as possible after death, but generally causes severe enough damage to be un-recoverable, with current tech. But this young lady isn't counting on current tech, she's counting on FUTURE tech. And she was dying anyway, so what's the worst that would happen ? She'd STAY dead. . .
Imagine waking up in 400 years, surrounded by scientists and doctors all cheering at their breakthrough. "Is there still a WWW?", you ask. "Yes! Just think of what you want to visit and this holographic unit will bring it up in 3D for all of us to see." Smile then concentrate on goatse.
Trolling is a art,
Just think of the perfectly preserved bodies that future archaeologists will be able to study!
You haven't researched this since 1970 have you? There's ways they've figured out to freeze bodies without causing the cellular damage.
Of course, still nobody has been successfully revived yet, AFAIK but that is as theoretically solvable of a technical problem...
Until a human compatible antifreeze is discovered, cryogenics is a waste of time and money. Unless future humans want piles of mush.
You are thinking too narrowly. You don't necessarily need to revive the flesh. You could slice the frozen brain, scan the neuron connections, and then duplicate them in-silico.
In Colorado, there's a town famous for having a frozen dead guy on hand. It's important to recognize what this is: a vain (and hopeless) bid for immortality.
Thing I'm wondering is - why don't they freeze her while she's still alive? Even if they find a cure for cancer, that will likely not be something that resurrects the dead. So if they are gonna freeze her after she dies, it's a wasted effort, too.
Instead, freeze her now while she's still alive, and whenever the cure is discovered, the doctors will thaw and cure her. Of course, nobody she knows may be alive, her relatives - descendants of any siblings she may have - won't know her, she won't know any of the things that may have developed by then, so her only choice may be to marry someone 700 years younger to her - assuming they haven't abolished marriage and divorce by then.
Too bad the judge's heart trumped his brain, and he couldn't say 'no' to the ridiculous request of this precious snowflake
What's the furthest back you could go and still have the person relatively well-integrated into society?
Judging by recent events, 50% of people aren't well suited to fit into society -- without displacing them in time %N years.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
And the ruling is absurd... if one of the parents wanted to make handbags out of her skin, the judge would of ruled against them.
The decision was rightly the teen's, not the parents'. It's her body, after all. Provided the teen can come up with a way to pay for the procedure, that is—and in this case the mother was willing to serve as sponsor. No one else has any legitimate say in the matter.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Thing I'm wondering is - why don't they freeze her while she's still alive? Even if they find a cure for cancer, that will likely not be something that resurrects the dead.
The current state-of-the-art freezing processes would kill her anyway, so the end result is the same. We don't have the ability to freeze the body without fatally damaging the cells. Anyone with the technology to reverse the massive cellular damage from the cryo would most likely be able to deal with the rest without any trouble. From a legal point of view, freezing someone while still alive would be much more problematic—it would probably be classified as a form of assisted suicide, given our current inability to reverse the process. No one wants to take on that kind of liability for a infinitesimally better chance of successful revival in the distant future.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
While I don't think there's any actual chance of her ever being revived and cured, I'd be willing to bet that the thought that there was a chance (however slim) helped the girl accept her situation and made her last days a lot less hellish than they might have otherwise been.
Once we get a space elevator, we could just store these people in space! Let them become comets for a thousand years then retrieve them on their next pass by Earth... I would totally go for that!
The problem is a question of faith? What justifies faith. What type of evidence is enough to give one faith. Faith is 'the belief in things not yet observed' a conjecture based on available evidence.
I find it ironic, that some have faith in cryogenics given the evidence for any possible success is certainly no better and in many ways much less then the evidence for a omnipotent creator who will resurrect your body at a future date.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
The father had legitimate concerns about how she would live after 200 years if she was revived (cited in another post of mine below). You are welcome to clamor for an endless extension of life, but there are issues other than that that have to be considered, and her genius of a mom was incapable of seeing beyond the suffering of her little girl. And cryogenically freezing her would not kill her, so no, it wouldn't be murder: her cells would just be frozen until a time when they figure out how to remove her cancer
It's our era's version of mummification. We preserve the body on the hope that it can be restored. We have a bright future in our imaginations instead of an afterlife. But it's really all the same thing.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
1) Fine, in your madmax future world, the level of tech might be lower... *shrugs*
2) I doubt they're going to hate a 14 year old girl with cancer. Some billionaire shithead who led a company that actively harmed the environment... Just imagine if the Koch brothers were frozen... We might want to wake those fuckers up just so we could use them as pinatas.
3) Do some research on the inviability of cryo.. At last check they're doing stuff like at the moment of death, pumping out all the blood and replacing it with antifreeze and using other techniques to prevent cell damage. Private labs have also been doing experiments on animals with limited success.
I also agree with your last point. However, I think we can do both. We can focus on cures now and work on the technology for later.
On a somewhat serious note, when it comes to deep space travel, cryo storing people might be the most sensible way to say colonize a distant planet where the ship is going to take 1,000 years to get there. Yes, yes, I know there's a WHOLE shitload of technical hurdles, but if we got the cryo stuff right it would give us that option.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Why would they care about how useful their technology when applied to someone frozen with 300 year old technology? They will care if its useful when applied to someone frozen with what is then relatively current technology.
If they really want to go into the revival of dead bodies preserved with old technologies, they would go back at least as far as Egyptian mummies and revive them (if, nothing else, for the humor value of watching someone from that era "awake" in a futuristic world - it would make a great YouTube video).
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Or maybe he was opposed to being forced to spend a lot more money on what he (probably rightfully) views as a complete waste of time and money.
If you had terminal cancer at 14 would you be like, 'Oh sure, it's only fair for me to go ... and wanting to live longer would just make me a narcissist.'?
And what about human lives is worth saving? There is no sanctity of life. Very few people actually make enough of a dent on the rest of humanity to legitimately be called important, and even then, many if not most of those people make negative impacts.
If you disappeared off the planet right now, only a few people would really, truly be devastated. Your parents, if they're still alive. Your spouse or significant-other. Your children. Possibly your siblings and possibly their children if you have a close relationship. Devastated as they would be, however, even they would probably move-on with life, and in time would remember you somewhat dispassionately instead of being consumed with mourning. Parents would remember you from time to time. Spouse or significant other would move-on. Children would have to move on as it's normal for their parents to die before them anyway.
We all die. We're all pretty good at handling the death around us, even in cultures where significant effort is made to thwart death. The death of a fourteen year old girl from disease past the ability of medical science to treat is unfotunate, but it's also pretty routine, and to be honest, our ability to suspend the body and preserve it is so poor that she's never going to be reanimated and cured from what ails her now. It's a shame that snake-oil salesmen have convinced some people that it's possible to do this, when all it will do is consume resources without any return.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
No, mom's family footed this bill
Yo Potsy, she's dead. They're preserving a corpse.
Another few questions to ask:
Who is going to keep on paying for her being frozen? Her parents may do that for the rest of their lives, but then who will pay after they are gone?
What if the cryonics business that is keeping her frozen goes out of business?
Who is going to expend resources to revive the person, cure the disease and get her trained for living in the world of then. (It won't be cheap!)
If there are relatives (distant at that) living at that time, then will they take care of this stranger?
What if the cryonics business that is keeping her frozen goes out of business?
This is a very good question! Which leads us to the question of if something happens, and the dearly frozen is thawed, is the company holding the peoplesicle guilty of manslaughter?
What if a hundred years from now, descendants of the frozen don't want to support the monthly bill. Are they permitted to defrost the corpse? Or is this depraved indifference manslaughter or even murder one?
It's easy to say "But she's dead already." But a person kooky enough to put a dead family member in the cooler is crazy enough to press for charges, and probably doesn't believe the person is dead anyhow.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.