Cryopreservation

[gryffron]

I have no moral objection to cryogenic preservation. It's no more barmy than all the other wierd rituals we put our dead relatives through.

I wondered who paid too. Found it on the bottom of the BBC website. Mum paidup the £37k. Doesn't sound much to me for eternal storage. But I checked and a deep freeze only costs £100 a year to run, so I suppose the return on £37k will cover that just fine.

Will it ever work? Who knows. But as Jayhoe says, what have you got to lose. And wouldn't it be fascinating to wake up and talk to someone who lived 200 years ago.

Gryff

[swill453]

Unfortunately this poor girl's chances are even less than the other delusionals. The operators say that blood needs to be drained from the body and replaced by some other fluid within minutes of death. She died in the UK and was/is frozen in the US, so go figure.

(And how they get this fluid in the (already collapsed) tiny blood vessels in the brain is, er, not fully explained.)

Scott.

[Gersemi]

Unfortunately this poor girl's chances are even less than the other delusionals. The operators say that blood needs to be drained from the body and replaced by some other fluid within minutes of death. She died in the UK and was/is frozen in the US, so go figure.

(And how they get this fluid in the (already collapsed) tiny blood vessels in the brain is, er, not fully explained.)

Scott.

According to the BBC she was frozen in the UK by a voluntary group, but the article does refer to 'problems' on the day she died, so that does suggest the process was not done in ideal conditions. Presumably she was transferred to the US after that.

[swill453]

According to the BBC she was frozen in the UK by a voluntary group, but the article does refer to 'problems' on the day she died, so that does suggest the process was not done in ideal conditions. Presumably she was transferred to the US after that.

The voluntary group "prepared" the body (with "problems"), it doesn't say they froze it.

Scott.

[Gersemi]

The voluntary group "prepared" the body (with "problems"), it doesn't say they froze it.

Scott.

Granted - however on this page

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38019392

It does say "In the UK, a group of volunteers trained in cryonics takes care of the body, starts the process of freezing and arranges for it to be shipped to the country where it is to be stored."

So I think some freezing did take place in the UK.

[swill453]

So I think some freezing did take place in the UK.

Do you think they'd get a body-sized container of liquid nitrogen shipped to the USA for a proportion of their £37,000? I doubt it very much.

Scott.

[gryffron]

Do you think they'd get a body-sized container of liquid nitrogen shipped to the USA for a proportion of their £37,000? I doubt it very much

Easy. Only costs a few hundred pounds to send 100kg air freight to USA. Add a little for special handling. Still doubt it would cost more than £1k. Coffins often travel on scheduled flights to repatriate the dead - the airlines don't shout about that too much.

Scott, I don't think anyone is suggesting this is a good investment. Clearly, the chances of success are minimal. And even less because it started in the UK rather than US. But as long as they are only spending heir own money, then as far as I'm concerned, it's up to them.

Gryff

[hermit100]

I just can't see how this could possibly work.

I agree, surely if revival is possible (moot point) one has to be frozen before one is actually dead? I would be very surprised, and frankly horrified, if in future it becomes possible to re-animate a dead body, let alone render it, and the person it belongs to, fully functional.

[gryffron]

I agree, surely if revival is possible (moot point) one has to be frozen before one is actually dead? I would be very surprised, and frankly horrified, if in future it becomes possible to re-animate a dead body, let alone render it, and the person it belongs to, fully functional.

And I agree. But for millenia people, often those people who could least afford it, have dug deeply into their pockets for the even less likely probability of eternal afterlife in their chosen heaven. So what's the difference? This is just science fiction heaven.

gryff

[swill453]

Scott, I don't think anyone is suggesting this is a good investment. Clearly, the chances of success are minimal. And even less because it started in the UK rather than US. But as long as they are only spending heir own money, then as far as I'm concerned, it's up to them.Gryff

I'm just always interested to find out stuff that's behind the headlines.

The BBC links to the method used to freeze the bodies, but doesn't explore how a 14 year old girl in the UK could get it done for the quoted £37,000.

Also - what was the court case actually about? Who were the "sides"? (The father did consent to it at some point, so why was a judge's determination necessary?)

Scott.

[melonfool]

Scott, I don't think anyone is suggesting this is a good investment. Clearly, the chances of success are minimal. And even less because it started in the UK rather than US. But as long as they are only spending heir own money, then as far as I'm concerned, it's up to them.Gryff

I'm just always interested to find out stuff that's behind the headlines.

The BBC links to the method used to freeze the bodies, but doesn't explore how a 14 year old girl in the UK could get it done for the quoted £37,000.

Also - what was the court case actually about? Who were the "sides"? (The father did consent to it at some point, so why was a judge's determination necessary?)

Scott.

The father's consent was 'conditional' and the child refused the condition (which was to see her body after her death - yuck!). Seemed like an odd condition to me, especially as she was very ill. The condition surely showed he had no genuine aversion to the procedure?

I expect it was the NHS Trust who felt they needed to involve the courts as no decision was being reached by the parents. The question here (to me) though is, why was it anything to do with the parents? Should a 14 year old have determination over their own body? I'm not sure if the court ruled in favour of the mother, or of the child!

But the court upshot seems to have been that this is not a precedent case, all Trusts make their own decisions.

Mel

[gryffron]

I'm not sure if the court ruled in favour of the mother, or of the child

Reports stated the judge met and spoke with the girl before her death. So I guess the ruling was in her favour, rather than mum's.

In fact, wasn't the ruling actually made before her death? But only reported much later.

gryff

[melonfool]

I'm not sure if the court ruled in favour of the mother, or of the child

Reports stated the judge met and spoke with the girl before her death. So I guess the ruling was in her favour, rather than mum's.

In fact, wasn't the ruling actually made before her death? But only reported much later.

gryff

It was certainly reported over a month after her death but I'm not sure if the ruling actually made it before she died.

Mel

[swill453]

It was certainly reported over a month after her death but I'm not sure if the ruling actually made it before she died.

According to the BBC

When the girl was told about the court's decision, she had been "delighted" and referred to the judge as "Mr Hero Peter Jackson", her lawyer said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38012267

Scott.

[PrincessB]

Hi Gersemi,


swill453 wrote:
Except the increase in life expectancy isn't currently accelerating, it's slowing down, as I understand it. Diminishing returns and all that.
[/]

And you wrote:

[i]With current techniques that is correct. I was thinking of more radical developments like the research described here:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 080947.htm

that relates to metabolic enzymes.

An interesting area indeed.

BBC news covered this slightly related story a few days ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37988439
'Genetic breakthrough: Crops use more sunlight to grow' a badly written headline which should read 'Genetic breakthrough to allow crops to use sunlight more efficiently to save world from starvation at some stage or another.'

To develop on this theme, things don't usually progress in a linear fashion. Perhaps we've become used to the steady increases we have seen in computing power, the ever better fuel economy of cars, the ever greater resolution of the TV set and missed the bluster and claims which try to claim an anti ageing face cream is better than it was several decades ago. I am not including botox here but in some areas progress has been huge and sustained and in others things have barely moved forwards since Victorian times - For example, I rented a flat a couple of weeks ago and the kitchen sink didn't have quarter turn taps - That might sound petty but I would no longer wish to drive a car without antilock brakes and they have been standard for ages.

Most certainly some things have moved forwards, for those with sufficient budget a really nice looking set of teeth can be yours and I understand that some of those shampoo treatments for men with thinning hair have some scientific basis behind them.

At some stage, someone is going up with a real rejuvenating face product and the legal battle between the big cosmetic cosmetic companies and whoever comes up with a science based winning solution are going to be epic.

Whether that poor girl will ever get resurrected is a matter of conjecture, likely with a negative outcome but to put three thousand years of history into context, I was in a museum in Derby recently and for some reason they had a mummy tucked into one corner with a lot of old school 'educational rather than edu-tainment' stuff on the walls. Fascinating stuff, their best shot for immortality three thousand years ago is probably as good as ours has a chance of looking in three thousands years time.

Regards,

B.

[swill453]

I reckon the most likely relevant medical or technological advance will be the ability to definitively determine that the cryopreserved corpses have irreparable damage to the brain tissues (with some sort of Star Trek tricorder?). So just hunks of meat in a freezer then.

Scott.

[Clitheroekid]

Perhaps this could be the answer to the ageing population, and the rapidly increasing problem of providing sufficient health care for the elderly.

It would probably be cost-effective for the NHS to offer free cryopreservation for any elderly person who wants it.

After all, I suppose it might work ... one day ... And in the meantime it would free up a lot of hospital beds - it's much cheaper to keep them in a freezer than a hospital!

But it also gives rise to some interesting legal issues. On the face of it, as the frozen person is expecting to return they would presumably want all their property and so on to be there waiting for them, otherwise they would return as a pauper.

But how can they provide for such a situation in their Will? I can't imagine the greedy heirs taking it lying down when they hear that Great Uncle Fester has tied up his estate for two hundred years just on the off chance he might come back to life.

[panamagold]

What would happen if the company 'caretaking' these frozen steaks goes bust?

panamagold

[Clitheroekid]

What would happen if the company 'caretaking' these frozen steaks goes bust?

panamagold

Presumably they'd need a liquidator!

[swill453]

I'm sure it'd be fine, their assets would be frozen.

Scott.