The debate about the ethics surrounding the legal case of 14-year old UK girl with cancer who wanted to be preserved cryogenically in the hope of being cured in the future continues to rage (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/18/the-cryonics-dilemma-will-deep-frozen-bodies-be-fit-for-new-life). One can understand people 'grasping at straws' but a) there is very little evidence that re-animation of multicellular mammalian tissue (especially the brain) is possible after being frozen in liquid nitrogen at almost -200 degrees Centigrade; b) as more people are currently alive on the planet than in all of earlier human history it suggests, that if a high proportion of folk took up the option, it would completely overwhelm resources; c) reanimated folk (if it proves possible) might well find it difficult to fit in the future; d) the future populations might well refuse to allow them to benefit from the results of improved medical technologies (this could be a strain on their resources) and e) the cryonics companies (currently looking after 300 folk in the USA and 50 in Russia) may well not persistent long enough to benefit their clients. The current going rate for USA based cryonics customers is $36k, meaning that cryonics is only an option for the comparatively wealthy. Personally, I don't think we should be encouraging people to seriously consider this option.
No comments:
Post a Comment