Morendil comments on Open Thread: March 2010, part 2 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: RobinZ 11 March 2010 05:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (334)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ata 15 March 2010 06:35:36AM *  4 points [-]

A survey on cryonics laws:

  1. 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?

  2. Should it become legal for a person to choose to be cryonically preserved before physiological death regardless of medical circumstances?

  3. 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?

  4. 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)?

  5. Should laws against mishandling human remains be more severe in the case of cryonics patients?

  6. 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.

  7. 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)?

  8. 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?

Comment author: Morendil 15 March 2010 10:42:50AM 3 points [-]

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.