Scientists have power to bring back dead

[Scarlett Hayden]

Scientists have the power to bring back the dead by cryogenically freezing them. Obviously this can be used to save many lives, but how would you consider this moralistically speaking? Is it correct to hold such power?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/10/experimental-tr.html

Edit: What do you reckon happens to the spirit, if you do at all believe that a living being has a spirit?

 

[Cognisant]

Scientists have the power to bring back the dead by cryogenically freezing them. Obviously this can be used to save many lives, but how would you consider this moralistically speaking? Is it correct to hold such power?

Power itself has the potential for abuse not matter what form it may take.

 

[SandMizzle]

*An INTP friend of mine and I discussed about humanity getting imortal through medical progress two years ago. We called it a necessary step in evolution to become a huge collective of knownledge.* I would find this very interessting if they would use it for cryostasis for spaceflights.
In this age of perverted medical abuse it's hard to draw a line and say what's morally ok and what's not.
In this case I don't see a huge problem:
1. You don't hurt anyone.
2. You can safe lives.
3. It's not like life-support mashines that let you suffer a bit longer

For example: If you would have an accident on the street and you die, so they instantly freeze you and revieve you at the station where they have better equipment for this, I see no problem.

Edit-question: I personally don't believe in sirits, it's an interessting question though.
Maybe your spirit flies of to the place where you would be happy for all eternity and suddenly something grabs you and pulls you back in your horrible life and you already stamped your ticket to eternal happiness and you are not allowed to go back there if you die again. That would be horsecrap.

Power itself has the potential for abuse not matter what form it may take.

Very true!

 

[SpaceYeti]

Scientists have the power to bring back the dead by cryogenically freezing them. Obviously this can be used to save many lives, but how would you consider this moralistically speaking? Is it correct to hold such power?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/10/experimental-tr.html

Edit: What do you reckon happens to the spirit, if you do at all believe that a living being has a spirit?

What would be incorrect about this procedure? It works, right?

I do not believe in a spirit. The idea is silly, and I don't know how it factors into this problem. We could conjecture that it leaves the body, then comes back, or we could say it doesn't leave until the body is decomposing, we could say anything we want. What I want to know is how to figure out if spirits exist in the first place, and how we'd figure out what actually happens to them, instead of all this needless and silly conjecture.

 

[SpaceYeti]

In this age of perverted medical abuse

... ? Such as?

 

[SandMizzle]

... ? Such as?

pharmaceutical companies who pay doctors...
life-support mashines on brain dead people Oo
junkies^^
dubious research methods on animals and humans
.
.
.

 

[SpaceYeti]

pharmaceutical companies who pay doctors...
life-support mashines on brain dead people Oo
junkies^^
dubious research methods on animals and humans
.
.
.

Each of these is debatable. Still, even if they are unwise or harmful practices, calling this an "age of perverted medical abuse" seems to gloss over all the good things coming out of medical science, such as, for example, saved lives, saved limbs, transplants, prosthetics, and basically every single other aspect of medical science. Basically, it's far too generalized and far reaching a statement to make as lightly and quickly as you did.

The first item on the list is easily the worst, but it's also ignoring the Hippocratic oath. Yes, some individual doctors may not follow it, but they're the exception, not the rule. Your typical doctor will not proscribe any medicine if he suspects it's not appropriate, even if he may proscribe it instead of a different medicine due to getting more money for doing so. It's not like doctors are out there proscribing anti-depressants to deal with the pain of broken limbs, or anything. The medicine is usually suited to the disease it's treating.

I see no problem with using life-support machines on people who wish to stay alive or when the next of kin wishes it when there is no way of communicating with the patient. Especially in the cases of brain-dead people, it doesn't hurt anyone, it just uses up money that could be used on other things. The problem is when people who are terminally ill and wish to end their suffering are not allowed to do so.

Junkies are a problem regardless how they get whichever drug they're addicted to. I don't know what it has to do with medical science except indirectly (new drugs come from medical science, but this is a matter of use, not it's existence).

I don't really know too much about modern "dubious" animal or human research, except I'd rather the experiments get done on animals than humans.

 

[SandMizzle]

Each of these is debatable. Still, even if they are unwise or harmful practices, calling this an "age of perverted medical abuse" seems to gloss over all the good things coming out of medical science, such as, for example, saved lives, saved limbs, transplants, prosthetics, and basically every single other aspect of medical science. Basically, it's far too generalized and far reaching a statement to make as lightly and quickly as you did.

Of course these statements are generalized and it's true that more good was done than harm was given. I just think about all the halfdead way too old people crawling around and vegetate on some uppers and downers, all the kids that were diagnosed with ADHD, because the docs get money for giving them hard drugs. These are some examples.

I'm not saying that medical progress is bad, but please understand me when I say that it is too much money involved. And money makes people corrupt and systems perverted. And the medical system is a bit peverted nowadays, wheter or not it helps people.
You see I don't want to blame your beloved medical system, but there are bad things everywhere.

 

[Cognisant]

Too much money involved?
I keep hearing the problem is the lack of it.

The ADHD thing is mainly bad parenting, why else would they be taking their kids to the doctor in the first place? It's not like doctors are going door to door looking for parents to sell drugs to, the parents have trouble controlling their kids so they go to the doctor for an easy fix, unless of course the child in question actually has ADHD in which case then the medication is appropriate.

I know a lot of people who do this sort of thing, pressuring doctors into giving them prescriptions, and if the doctor takes a stand they simply go find another one, and in the case of the ADHD thing when other people start to catch on that these poor kids are being medicinally pacified by their lazy parents the parents blame the doctor for giving them the prescription and the media takes their side because it makes a good story.



And come to think of it the use of "vendor tactics" by pharmaceutical companies is (as far as I know, though I admit I'm no expert on the subject) primarily targeted at chemists, not doctors, because although it's the doctor who writes the prescription it's the chemist who decides which brand to pick off the back shelf, or which one to recommend to the customer, and the only time a doctor would specify a particular type of medicine like that would be if there's a good reason for it.

I have a history of reacting to certain kinds of anaesthetic, causing my heart to palpitate, so a doctor may prescribe a specific kind of anaesthetic for me that's less likely to have a bad reaction, but I doubt he will specify it by brand, I doubt most doctors even pay attention to that sort of stuff.

 

[SandMizzle]

Too much money involved?
I keep hearing the problem is the lack of it.

If you go for research you are right. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I really don't like the idea of multi billion dollar pharmaceutical companies.

The ADHD thing is mainly bad parenting, why else would they be taking their kids to the doctor in the first place? It's not like doctors are going door to door looking for parents to sell drugs to, the parents have trouble controlling their kids so they go to the doctor for an easy fix, unless of course the child in question actually has ADHD in which case then the medication is appropriate.

I know a lot of people who do this sort of thing, pressuring doctors into giving them prescriptions, and if the doctor takes a stand they simply go find another one, and in the case of the ADHD thing when other people start to catch on that these poor kids are being medicinally pacified by their lazy parents the parents blame the doctor for giving them the prescription and the media takes their side because it makes a good story.

Good point. You mean it's a society problem, I like the idea and I know that there are much too much parents out there who just want their children calm, but I think there are two problem areas colliding. I also think that with a good scrutiny the doctor wouldn't diagnose ADHD when there is no such thing.

 

[SandMizzle]

And come to think of it the use of "vendor tactics" by pharmaceutical companies is (as far as I know, though I admit I'm no expert on the subject) primarily targeted at chemists, not doctors, because although it's the doctor who writes the prescription it's the chemist who decides which brand to pick off the back shelf, or which one to recommend to the customer, and the only time a doctor would specify a particular type of medicine like that would be if there's a good reason for it.

I have a history of reacting to certain kinds of anaesthetic, causing my heart to palpitate, so a doctor may prescribe a specific kind of anaesthetic for me that's less likely to have a bad reaction, but I doubt he will specify it by brand, I doubt most doctors even pay attention to that sort of stuff.

In my country the doctor also picks the brand and it happened to me that a lung doctor recommended me some really heavy drugs, when three other lung doctors just laughed at his decision and told me that he probably gets money for it. Maybe they were just kidding... I'm no expert either.

 

[Sigma Octantis]

What is dead may never be killed.



well, tbh.

i dont think its a good idea, once someone is dead, let them rest.
for simple reasons.


1. When that person dies, do you really want them to suffer again by dying for the second time?
do you really think they'd want to live again anyway?

they might say yes now but basically this is like saying...

"finding a cave man and suddenly bringing it back to the 21st century."

imagine a world that has changed so much to the point that you dont even recognise it.


the person that came back from the dead would go through a lot of mental stress and depression and would evidently regret coming back to life.

not only that, if their loved ones sees them suffering, do you really think they'd enjoy it too?


lets say that the stigma of being a zombie is now gone and its socially acceptable to say...

"date of birth: Depends, which one? the one that i erupted from my mums vagina or when i rose from the dead?"

it will still create issues in society.


so i believe that what is dead should be left dead.

 

[SandMizzle]

i dont think its a good idea, once someone is dead, let them rest.
for simple reasons.
1. When that person dies, do you really want them to suffer again by dying for the second time?
do you really think they'd want to live again anyway?
they might say yes now but basically this is like saying...
"finding a cave man and suddenly bringing it back to the 21st century."
imagine a world that has changed so much to the point that you dont even recognise it.
the person that came back from the dead would go through a lot of mental stress and depression and would evidently regret coming back to life.
not only that, if their loved ones sees them suffering, do you really think they'd enjoy it too?
lets say that the stigma of being a zombie is now gone and its socially acceptable to say...
"date of birth: Depends, which one? the one that i erupted from my mums vagina or when i rose from the dead?"
it will still create issues in society.
so i believe that what is dead should be left dead.

It's one of my dreams to go 1000 years into the future, I don't see the point here
And you probably wont freeze these people for eternety.
And what about rescue breathing, isn't that also a methode to reviving people.
Where is the edge?
Two birthdays would also be great, not for me, I don't mind birthdays, but I guess many do and wouldn't see a problem having two in one year.

 

[Cognisant]

imagine a world that has changed so much to the point that you dont even recognise it.

*collapses and moans orgasmically in what appears to be some kind of convulsion*

 

[nexion]

Recent and potential future scientific innovations unnerve me, though, admittedly, there is no reason for them to do this, unless I still, in the back of my mind, hold onto the petty notion that there is such thing as a "soul," that man is set above the rest. Perhaps I still do: this is the problem of will.

Let man do what he will. I will die when I will die, and hopefully this will come to pass before man bastardizes the universe beyond all recognition. But if I really wanted to do that without self-termination, I might would have to get away from all modern society at some point. Maybe this shall come to pass at some point as well.

I'm not saying it "should" or "shouldn't" be done. I'm saying that the mere possibility unsettles me.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

How many of you have read the article? >.<

It's talking about a 'last minute death freeze' to prolong the time window for medical treatment for example for people who recently were critically injured.

It's not that controversial as actual zombie necromancy type stuff, this is actually a good thing as it is.

EDIT:

Scientists have the power to bring back the dead by cryogenically freezing them. Obviously this can be used to save many lives, but how would you consider this moralistically speaking? Is it correct to hold such power?

It's not that much power.

Edit: What do you reckon happens to the spirit, if you do at all believe that a living being has a spirit?

I don't know, I would think the ghost needs a host, and unless it has a shell it's not really there. What is consciousness, with no animation? What is being, without feeling?

 

[Vrecknidj]

First, what's described in the linked story has VERY limited scope and doesn't apply to very many potential patients. Second, what it discusses isn't bringing people back from death, it discusses preventing death by thermal means.

As far as the other issues, especially moral issues with either bringing back people from death or preventing people from dying through freezing, we can discuss those when they're real.

 

[intpz]

First of all, waking up in a world that has changed unrecognizably would be awesome. It's like time travel. I'd like to wake up and continue living.

Secondly, I do wonder about the fact if it would be me or not me, would I be aware or not that it is me. Would I be dead? Logic says no, as it freezes you and all, so technically your body isn't reactive. I don't believe in spirits or whatever else people believe in.

 

[Black Rose]

https://sites.google.com/site/quantumarchaeology/

 

[SpaceYeti]

I witness a livid conversation about how medicating ADHD is bad or lazy. What would happen if ADHD were an actual illness, due to a minor imbalance of chemical signals in the brain? Would the tone of this conversation change at all?

 

[nexion]

I witness a livid conversation about how medicating ADHD is bad or lazy. What would happen if ADHD were an actual illness, due to a minor imbalance of chemical signals in the brain? Would the tone of this conversation change at all?

That all depends on how one defines "illness" and "chemical imbalance."

 

[perkins]

Necromancy! Science = witchcraft. This is a good excuse to bring back the tradition of witch-hunts. I got dibs on Stephen Hawking. Easy pickins.

 

[intpz]

Let's form a cult, meet once a week and conduct witch (scientist) hunts. Then let's attempt to take care of the in various ways that the witch-hunters used to take care of witches in the past. Or if they are religious, let's take care of them like the Christians used to take care of the scientists... I mean witches... I mean people... In the middle ages.

 

[perkins]

Let's sodomize those sinners!

 

[Hadoblado]

Spirit are an artifact theory that is not consistent with bringing people back from the dead. The explanatory worth of spirit theory is less than the value of the questions it begs.

 

[snafupants]

Herbert West - Reanimator! Pet Sematary! Walt Disney step right up.

 

[intpz]

Actually it's true - if you're dead, would your spirit go back to your body, or would a new one, similar to yours would be created? That doesn't make any sense, does it.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Actually it's true - if you're dead, would your spirit go back to your body, or would a new one, similar to yours would be created? That doesn't make any sense, does it.

What's true?

 

[intpz]

I have no idea, I must've been thinking about something else before starting to write. Can't answer that question.

 

[Wasp]

*collapses and moans orgasmically in what appears to be some kind of convulsion*

NO ONE REVIVE HIM!!!!!!

 

[Wasp]

Well the bible does say that the dead will return as living. Maybe the religious nuts are just misinterpreting it......

 

[Vidi]

^
If i exist, then anything can exist. Then bringing dead people back as living is like a walk in a park, there is even a dead body to start with. Although it is a subject to copyright (especially I mean 'easy' part), it belongs to an originator of the concepts per se: dead, people, dead people , etc.

 

[A22]

"I didn't know I died, I didn't feel anything, I still don't believe it," Bill said.

lmao

and

The body temperature, which is normally 98 degrees, is brought down to just 92 degrees.

wow, frozen

 

[walfin]

We just need to revisit our definition of dead.

Anyway, cold kills too. Probably screws up the cytoplasm of the cells (since it'll crystallise). Ask any one of those who died in the Siberian gulags when you get to see them (if you believe you will ever get to).

 

[intpz]

Well the bible does say that the dead will return as living. Maybe the religious nuts are just misinterpreting it......

They say that because according to them Jesus (or whatever was that fuck's name) risen from the dead, therefore they apply the same principle to the people, that one day "god" will allow us to be like him. Only the religious people though. I believe.

 

[scorpiomover]

Scientists have the power to bring back the dead by cryogenically freezing them. Obviously this can be used to save many lives, but how would you consider this moralistically speaking? Is it correct to hold such power?

Well, we could freeze all the young people, and bring back Mr Burns:

Edit: What do you reckon happens to the spirit, if you do at all believe that a living being has a spirit?

Consciousness is a virtual memory sim. It could be stored anywhere, in this dimensional hyper-plane, or any other dimensional hyper-plane. Consciousness could then be transferred, from any body able to support such a consciousness, from this dimensional hyper-plane, to the storage hyper-plane, and back, as many times as necessary. Only problem is, we don't have control of the transfer mechanism. We can destroy the body, and thus disable the body from being an appropriate receptacle, and thus force the consciousness to the storage hyper-plane. We can temporarily disable the body from storage, and then re-enable it. But we can't really control if, or when, it comes back. That bit, we are currently not yet in control of.

 

[RaBind]

I don't see much immortality in this research. There are other research out there that are very immoral such as testing products, which may be harmful, on animals. When considering what is immoral you need to weigh up the benefits and cons. Is it really worth it to run the risk of torturing an animal just to improve a cleaning agent, which may not even work as it should? In this case saving a life is beneficial and weighs up the issues of the research.

Waking up in the future would be awesome, however if it is a post apocalyptic future I think more thought should be given into it.