I agree with your reasoning on the presentation of those arguments towards the benefit of using premortem cryonics for the suicidal.
If worded well enough, we could incorporate both when the idea circulates among the masses, but it would have to be very carefully done. The second argument would most likely be more effective on the general populace, as it has more of a touchy-feely we care about the individual sound, whereas the first is very much about utilitarianism and those with little understanding of that mindset would consider it to be ‘cold’ (no pun intended?).
What seems to be the hardest sell is whether people should have the ‘right’ to supposedly end their lives. While their lives wouldn’t be considered over in cryonics, the legal implications of this would be HUGE. Not that it really affects those who truly want to die, but we would have to tread lightly here. Worst-case scenario, people refer to this as assisted suicide. Best-case scenario, people consider this intense treatment for depression (or whatever reason the person wants to die)?
Thanks for the detailed response!!
Here is my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong:
Cryonics is only allowed once a person is determined legally dead: when the heart stops beating.
One of the reasons why they have to be dead seems to be that the majority of the population consider cryonics to be a death-sentence, as there is no guarantee at this time that subjects can be revived - regardless of if there's a cure for whatever ailment caused a person's death.
It is difficult at this time to improve the revitalizing process as the patients - or clients - are incapable of surviving as their body was already in the process of shutting down, and we do not have the technology to bring them fully back.
Now, to some conjecturing.
We might be able to more reasonably test the effectiveness of procedures to revive current patients if we had healthier people, ones not yet at death's door.
Here's where the ethical dilemma hits home: we could use people who are in good health, here defined as 'not terminally-ill or otherwise dying from health complications in the near future,' who are already intending to end their life. Simply stated, those who are suicidal.
For all intensive purposes they would cease to exist, which would be part of the appeal to that subgroup. At this time there is a probability of them dying from the procedure, which should be ok as they were self-destructing anyway. And if they don't die, they get the chance to reflect on their life or go at it again. In this way their death would be more beneficial to the whole.
The benefits to this would be the additional research into the effects of cryonics on the body and how to develop a procedure to guarantee that you CAN be revived once put under.
I am aware of a couple of problems: legal complications, how to find willing participants, etc., and am thinking of ways to resolve that.
I've just been thinking about this for the past week or so and wanted additional insight. Thoughts?
***On Suicide
For those opposed to suicide: this idea does not encourage people to kill themselves. Rather, it provides those who are already intent upon ending their existence a means to do so more honorably.
In case people have not read it, I recommend Schopenhauer's Essay on Suicide, found here: http://www.egs.edu/library/arthur-schopenhauer/articles/essays-of-schopenhauer/on-suicide/