The idea of being frozen is terrifying to many, the belief that your spirit is unable to leave your body and to move on into the next path for you spiritually. The time you may endure trapped in your mind or being taken away from the next life once you are revived is disturbing. Cryogenic preservation is a reality, the preservation of human bodies has been accomplished however what is uncertain of is the end result, which is possible human revival. Cryopreservation goes against many religious ideologies, doesn’t allow individuals to express their emotions of their loved one’s passing, and the idea of cryopreservation is a very relatively unknown future to invest in. Cryogenic preservation refers to sub zero temperatures applied to embryos, …show more content…
Even Alcor isn’t sure when and if they can revive the patients they have. They need to wait until there is proper research and methods to cure the patient of their specific disease (Eveleth). The company themselves have stated the fact that it is a theoretical idea that life can come back once it's been gone for a long time. Research must be conducted more on the basic principles of the idea and grow from there but as this point researchers are entirely sure that if any organs that were preserved along with the body will be viable for the future because they are unable to observe the body since it is dumped in liquid nitrogen (Frozen). Scientists haven’t researched the effects of cryogenic preservation thoroughly to be able to perform the procedures on people all over the world. Dr.Gao works in cryopreservation and even said that there is no evidence for cryopreservation, "People can always have hope that things will change in the future, but there is no scientific foundation supporting cryonics at this time"(Frozen). Even the doctor’s whose careers are to conduct this procedure and to be well known on the subject, admit that it does contain an uncertain
According to a doctor in the documentary, people are coming to the ICU’s to die. (Lyman et al, 2011) Due to the fact that technology to sustain life is available the decision to end life has become much more complicated yet more people die in hospitals then anywhere else. (Lyman et al, 2011) The story of Marthe the 86 year old dementia patient stood out to me upon viewing the documentary because I recently just had my great grandmother go through the same situation. (Lyman et al, 2011) Marthe entered the ICU and was intubated for two weeks while her family members decided whether to perform a tracheotomy or take her off life support. (Lyman et al, 2011) The family was having a tough time deciding due to the fact that the doctors could sustain Marthe’s life if they requested it. Marthe ended up being taken off the ventilator and to everyone’s surprise was able to breathe but, a day later she could no longer do so and now she has been on life support for a year. (Lyman et al, 2011) Another patient that I took particular interest in was John Moloney a 53 year old multiple myeloma patient who has tried every form of treatment with no success. (Lyman et al, 2011) Despite trying everything he still wanted treatment so he could live and go home with his family but ended up in
As of February 2000 there were in the United States 67,340 people waiting for organ transplants.8 In 1998, 4,855 Americans on that list died waiting.8 Against this backdrop of critical need, physicians in Wisconsin are using a controversial drug, Regitine, to preserve organs from patients on life support who still have brain activity, but who are not expected to survive their injury or illness.4 These donors, who typically die of cardiac arrest following the removal of life-sustaining technologies, are called non-heart-beating donors (NHBDs) and differ from traditional "brain-dead" donors in that the cessation of heart beat is sufficient to declare death and begin organ removal.3
Until this century, it was rare that brain-dead patients could be kept alive for long periods of time. However, as technological prowess has increased, it has recently become possible to keep a patient alive without higher brain functioning for years and even decades. But, as is always the case with new technology and knowledge, previously unknown ethical issues arise, and thus we have the difficult ethical problems of the Karen Ann Quinlan case.
Organs from deceased donors can come from two different deaths. One is fatal head injuries, such as strokes, car accidents, and aneurysms; where the patient is pronounced brain dead provide for viable organs. Another type of death from which organs can be harvested from is cardiac death where the heart fails to continue to pump blood to the body. Around 15% of organ donations are provided from cardiac deaths, consisting mainly of kidneys and livers (Author n.p.). These deaths are considered viable for organs and tissues to be harvested and transplanted to other patients. From a single body, up to 50 lives can be saved (Author n.p.). This is possible with the ability to transplants organs such as the liver, heart, kidney, intestine, lung, and pancreas and tissues such as corneas, bone, skin, heart valves, tendons, and cartilage. Each of these can make an enormous, live saving impact on someone’s
...or someone to latch themselves on the endless possibility that someone could “wake up” after being brain dead for so long. The scientific and medical world have advanced in ways that a normal person could understand. They have specifics testing in which they can determined whether a person is completely brain dead, or simply in a coma in which they have a chance of waking up.
There are places where patients receive Euthanasia, and although the people in the vegetative state cannot see, the peace is something that you don’t need to see to feel it. Also, Euthanasia will save money to the family, as reported by The New York State Department of Health, “Under any new system of health care delivery, as at present, it will be far less costly to give a lethal injection than to care for a patient throughout the dying process." Besides, there is no reason to keep a person alive if there is not a possibility of recover it would only affect the economy. As stated by the Medical Billing Advocates of America, “as many people have seen, the final cost associated with life support can be an enormous burden once that loved one has passed away.” Contrasting the cost of Euthanasia with the cost of keeping someone alive, the results show a considerable difference of spend that if possible should be avoided. Nevertheless, there are cases where it is worthy to spend all this money, for example, if there is hope of a recovery, the family will never consider any amount of money too much for a second chance in their relative
Suffering in pain and knowing that there is no hope is a horrible thing to experience as we live. Lying on a hospital bed in misery and grief because of a condition or illness that is hopeless is completely depressing to anyone. Euthanasia is one of the most controversial issues in society due to the difference in people’s point of views about dying. Although the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest breakthroughs in treatments and technology, we are still unable to find treatment for all diseases, and these patients have to go through painful or treatments that have greater risk than benefits only to prolong their life with little or no chance of full recovery. These patients struggle with physical and emotional pain for the reason that they feel like they are worthless because they can’t move or decide rationally. Euthanasia should be an option to certain terminal ill people because it allows them to choose whether they want to die or live a painful life.
... facilities. The medical scientists perform experiments on these donated organs, tissues, and bodies, in order to find cures and treatments for various complex medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes, etc. The newly found treatments further aid the medical practitioners in saving human lives (Dhillon, 2013).
Imagine watching a family member slip off into a land where they don’t even recognize you or other relatives. Their personality and health rapidly deteriorate to the point of becoming unrecognizable. Within a year, they slip into a coma and eventually die. There is absolutely nothing doctors
Frozen cells can be kept alive for very long periods of time in a state
Cryonics is the process in which an individual is dehydrated and then cryopreserved immediately after death, with hopes for the individual to be reanimated in the future. The promise of life after death, though gaining momentum and popularity, is also gaining skepticism. Cryonics is unethical. Not only is it extremely expense, those practicing cryonics can not ensure if the process even works. Furthermore Cryonics disregards Christianity. Large cryonics companies such as Alcor deny the fact that they are disrespecting and going against the religion. Though cryonics sets out to be a path to immortality and a chance at a second life, in reality cryonics is an unethical, unvalidated scientific practice.
If the palliative and hospice care were good enough and available to everyone in need of it, thoughts of euthanasia in terminally ill patients would be nearly nonexistent. It is best for a patient and his or her family or friends to be with each other until the end. With enough support from everyone, no matter how much pain, the patient should be set for the rest of his or her life. Palliative care also follows most religions, which means that there would be no reason for anyone to turn it down. If any important steps are taken to help out with the world’s euthanasia problem, palliative care should be one of the first plans put into
Retrieved December 30, 2013, from http://www.alcor.org/. Wolf, A. (2011). The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Se What is cryonics? Institute for Evidence-Based Cryonics. Retrieved December 30, 2013, from http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/what-is-cryonics/. Watson, S. (2013). The 'Secondary'.
Cryonics is the freezing of humans to preserve them for a later time. Yes, it is a possibility. In fact there are several businesses that offer these services. Two of these businesses are “The Cryonics Institute” and “The Alcor Life Extension Foundation.” Alcor Life Extension Foundation calls this process Cryotransport. The cryotransport process begins, according to their website, as soon as possible after legal death. The patient is prepared and cooled to a temperature where decay stops, and is then kept in this cooled state called cryostasis until medical science has advanced enough to bring the person back to life when life extension and anti-aging have become a reality.
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center uses a protocol for cardiopulmonary death in which they declare the patient dead after two minutes of cardiac arrest.1 This has become controversial because some critics argue patients could be resuscitated at the two minute mark, therefore the patients have not experienced irreversible loss of function and are not truly dead.1 In the event of organ donors, this violates the dead donor rule, which states that the patient must be dead in order to harvest organs.1 However, their council’s rebuttal states that ethically a patient has irreversibly lost function if the patient wishes to be free from life...