[ExI] New York Times piece on cryonics, featuring Robin Hanson & Peggy

[Michael D]

You are ignoring the context of the discusion, my comment was in relation to
stopping treatment for diseases that people might otherwise want because
others feel those treatments have too little chance of success. That is
indeed forcing someone to die against their will. Forcibly preventing a
potentially life saving medical procedure from being performed on a patient
who voluntarily desires it pays for it out of pocket is indistinguishable
from murder. The obvious connection to be made is that cryonics is also a
treatment that has little chance of success (in these people's eyes) and
thus a waste of money from the perspective of a social tyrant. And should
the validity of cryogenic suspension be proven, then yes forbidding someone
from getting it is as much murder as forbidding CPR would be. Whether you
call someone suspended, dead, or potentially-alive I don't care and is not
important to the topic of this discussion - the threat that socialized
medical care poses to procedurs that are percieved to have little chance of
success yet cost lots of money.

- Michael F Dickey

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>wrote:

> On 7/12/2010 12:21 PM, Michael D wrote:
>
> Exactly my problem with it, we have a very clear word that describes the
>> idea of forcing someone to die who does not want to, it's called murder.
>>
>
> Cryonics does not force anyone to die, nor does forbidding cryonics force
> anyone to die. Cryonics clients are, by definition, *dead* already.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100712/c94cff63/attachment.html>