Should it become legal for a person with a degenerative disease (Alzheimer’s, etc.) to choose to be cryonically preserved before physiological death, so as to preserve the brain’s information before it deteriorates further? Should a patient’s family be able to make such a choice for them, if their mind has already degenerated enough that they are incapable of making such a decision, or if they are in a coma or some other unconscious or uncommunicative state?
Should it become legal for a person to choose to be cryonically preserved before physiological death regardless of medical circumstances?
Should hospitals be required to cryonically preserve unidentified dead bodies, assuming cryonics is still possible given whatever condition the patient’s body is in? Should the default be neuropreservation or whole-body suspension?
Should your country’s national health care system (if it has one; if not, imagine it does, and that its existence is not up for debate) cover cryonics for anyone who wants it? Should it be opt-in or opt-out (or not optional)?
Should laws against mishandling human remains be more severe in the case of cryonics patients?
Should murder/homicide/manslaughter laws result in more severe punishment if the victim cannot be cryonically preserved (whether because the body was not found for too long, they were shot repeatedly in the head, they were drowned or burned or buried in a ditch, etc.)? Assume the victim would have been preserved otherwise.
How would greater legal recognition of cryonics interact with the death penalty? For example, if you are for the death penalty: what should happen if a death-row inmate is signed up for cryonics (or living in a country with a national health system that covers it, per #4)? If you are against it, but living in a country that has it, could you support any cryonics-based compromise (e.g. replacing execution with cryonic suspension until, hypothetically, our understanding of psychology has advanced enough that it is possible to rehabilitate even the most evil of criminals)?
Finally, a question about social and medical attitudes rather than laws: When cryonics is widely known and relatively socially acceptable, and the evidence for its possibility is well-accepted in the mainstream (or when people have already started being revived), should opting out of it be viewed as comparable or equivalent to being suicidal?
I’ve been wondering about 7 for some time now. I’m against the death penalty, but given that some countries have it, it seems so obvious that people who are now being executed should be preserved instead. The probablity of a wrongful conviction being non-trivial, $30K seems like a paltry sum to invest in the possibility, however slight, of later reviving someone who was wrongfully executed. I have looked at the figures for the cost to society of the legal process leading to execution, and it is shockingly high. People on death row should at least have the option, given how much is otherwise spent on them.
Yes and yes. I know what this is like because my grandmother spent the last years of her life with Alzheimer’s, in a nursing home. When she finally died, my mom didn’t cry; she explained to me that she had already done her mourning years ago. It made sense, insofar as it can ever make sense to “get over” the annihilation of a loved one: my grandmother, the person, had already effectively died long before her body did. None of us knew about cryonics at the time, and we likely wouldn’t have done it even if we had known about it, but I know that people are in this situation all the time, and as awareness and acceptance of cryonics grows, people should definitely have this option.
I’m inclined to say that it should be discouraged but legal as an individual choice. A person could already achieve a similar (though riskier) effect by calling an ambulance, making sure their bracelet and necklace are prominently visible, and killing themselves in a relatively non-destructive way.
Yes. I don’t know much about the pros and cons of neuro/whole-body other than the cost, but I think I’d go with the latter, to err on the side of caution.
Yes. I’d say it should be opt-out, or opt-in if that is absolutely necessary for getting the law passed.
Yes. The laws should treat it like an instance of killing someone in a coma, which are presumably the same as the laws for killing someone in general. Of course it should vary depending on whether it is accidental, negligent, or intentional.
I’m not quite sure. I’d think that if you cause someone’s bodily death, and they are able to be preserved perfectly, then it should be treated as a non-fatal assault or accident or whatever, but something doesn’t seem right about that. I think, rather than having the laws against causing someone’s bodily-but-not-information-theoretic death less severe, I’d prefer to have laws against causing someone’s information-theoretic death more severe.
I’d prefer to abolish the death penalty altogether. If the compromise I gave as an example were politically feasible, I would support it, but I doubt it would garner much more support than abolishing the death penalty; it seems like too many people in the US view the criminal justice system as a tool of punishment/revenge rather than of rehabilitation.
When it seems like a relatively mainstream thing to do (not necessarily common, but common enough that your friends don’t think you’re crazy for opting in to it) — when society has outgrown its rationalizations of death and its resistance to immortality (religious objections; the idea that there is some spiritual essence that will be destroyed; the luddite/”science has gone too far!” response; the idea that having people die against their will is a morally permissible means of avoiding overpopulation; et cetera) — then can we start questioning the mental health of people who still object to it.
A survey on cryonics laws:
Should it become legal for a person with a degenerative disease (Alzheimer’s, etc.) to choose to be cryonically preserved before physiological death, so as to preserve the brain’s information before it deteriorates further? Should a patient’s family be able to make such a choice for them, if their mind has already degenerated enough that they are incapable of making such a decision, or if they are in a coma or some other unconscious or uncommunicative state?
Should it become legal for a person to choose to be cryonically preserved before physiological death regardless of medical circumstances?
Should hospitals be required to cryonically preserve unidentified dead bodies, assuming cryonics is still possible given whatever condition the patient’s body is in? Should the default be neuropreservation or whole-body suspension?
Should your country’s national health care system (if it has one; if not, imagine it does, and that its existence is not up for debate) cover cryonics for anyone who wants it? Should it be opt-in or opt-out (or not optional)?
Should laws against mishandling human remains be more severe in the case of cryonics patients?
Should murder/homicide/manslaughter laws result in more severe punishment if the victim cannot be cryonically preserved (whether because the body was not found for too long, they were shot repeatedly in the head, they were drowned or burned or buried in a ditch, etc.)? Assume the victim would have been preserved otherwise.
How would greater legal recognition of cryonics interact with the death penalty? For example, if you are for the death penalty: what should happen if a death-row inmate is signed up for cryonics (or living in a country with a national health system that covers it, per #4)? If you are against it, but living in a country that has it, could you support any cryonics-based compromise (e.g. replacing execution with cryonic suspension until, hypothetically, our understanding of psychology has advanced enough that it is possible to rehabilitate even the most evil of criminals)?
Finally, a question about social and medical attitudes rather than laws: When cryonics is widely known and relatively socially acceptable, and the evidence for its possibility is well-accepted in the mainstream (or when people have already started being revived), should opting out of it be viewed as comparable or equivalent to being suicidal?
Yes to 1, 2, 3, 5, 6. Undecided on 4.
I’ve been wondering about 7 for some time now. I’m against the death penalty, but given that some countries have it, it seems so obvious that people who are now being executed should be preserved instead. The probablity of a wrongful conviction being non-trivial, $30K seems like a paltry sum to invest in the possibility, however slight, of later reviving someone who was wrongfully executed. I have looked at the figures for the cost to society of the legal process leading to execution, and it is shockingly high. People on death row should at least have the option, given how much is otherwise spent on them.
My answers:
Yes and yes.
I know what this is like because my grandmother spent the last years of her life with Alzheimer’s, in a nursing home. When she finally died, my mom didn’t cry; she explained to me that she had already done her mourning years ago. It made sense, insofar as it can ever make sense to “get over” the annihilation of a loved one: my grandmother, the person, had already effectively died long before her body did. None of us knew about cryonics at the time, and we likely wouldn’t have done it even if we had known about it, but I know that people are in this situation all the time, and as awareness and acceptance of cryonics grows, people should definitely have this option.
I’m inclined to say that it should be discouraged but legal as an individual choice. A person could already achieve a similar (though riskier) effect by calling an ambulance, making sure their bracelet and necklace are prominently visible, and killing themselves in a relatively non-destructive way.
Yes. I don’t know much about the pros and cons of neuro/whole-body other than the cost, but I think I’d go with the latter, to err on the side of caution.
Yes. I’d say it should be opt-out, or opt-in if that is absolutely necessary for getting the law passed.
Yes. The laws should treat it like an instance of killing someone in a coma, which are presumably the same as the laws for killing someone in general. Of course it should vary depending on whether it is accidental, negligent, or intentional.
I’m not quite sure. I’d think that if you cause someone’s bodily death, and they are able to be preserved perfectly, then it should be treated as a non-fatal assault or accident or whatever, but something doesn’t seem right about that. I think, rather than having the laws against causing someone’s bodily-but-not-information-theoretic death less severe, I’d prefer to have laws against causing someone’s information-theoretic death more severe.
I’d prefer to abolish the death penalty altogether. If the compromise I gave as an example were politically feasible, I would support it, but I doubt it would garner much more support than abolishing the death penalty; it seems like too many people in the US view the criminal justice system as a tool of punishment/revenge rather than of rehabilitation.
When it seems like a relatively mainstream thing to do (not necessarily common, but common enough that your friends don’t think you’re crazy for opting in to it) — when society has outgrown its rationalizations of death and its resistance to immortality (religious objections; the idea that there is some spiritual essence that will be destroyed; the luddite/”science has gone too far!” response; the idea that having people die against their will is a morally permissible means of avoiding overpopulation; et cetera) — then can we start questioning the mental health of people who still object to it.