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?
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,
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
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