Re: Cryonics Thoughts

hidden (
Tue, 01 Dec 1998 22:47:30 -0800

Hal Finney wrote:

> Keith M. Elis, <>, writes:
> > Hmm. Some have said that nanotech is inevitable, Feynman for one. (Or at
> > least Feynman said something along those lines in /There's Plenty of
> > Room.../.) If so, I wonder if a true cryonicist, if that is the term,
> > believing that nanotech is inevitable, would consider the option of
> > having himself frozen *while still alive*.
> Even if you believed that nanotech was inevitable, it would not guarantee
> that the cryonics organization would be successful in keeping you frozen
> until revival was possible. To use a very topical example, if Y2K causes
> a major economic collapse, liquid nitrogen could stop being available
> and all cryonics patients would be destroyed. You have much less control
> over your life while frozen than you do while alive, so in most cases
> even "true cryonicists" would probably not elect premature freezing.
> There was a court case in the 1980s in which Thomas Donaldson, who
> was suffering from a brain tumor, sued to establish his right to have
> himself frozen before death. The concern was that if he waited until
> the tumor killed him, his brain would be destroyed and there would be
> nothing of value to freeze. Donaldson lost his case, and there is no
> legal right to have yourself frozen before death in the United States,
> as far as I know. Fortunately Donaldson's health has remained good,
> and the tumor is apparently under control for now.

It was Donaldson that was on Phil Donnahue Right?

I have wondered what had happened in his case. I always thought I would committed suicide somehow. Because I know my insurance would still pay off... if I have had it for over two years. But would Alcor be able to freezes a suicide victim?... (suicide corps?) i.e. autopsy etc...

Any thoughts...?