If you find a person unconscious you are allowed to do CPR on them regardless of what they might later say their wishes were, because of the legal doctrine of implied consent.
Yes, but that has got nothing to do with the rape that has been committed in the name of 'primum non nocere'. Cryonics is not CPR (i.e. there is enough time to find out all the details) so performing longterm suspension against someone's will is indefensible.
Nobody should get in trouble for doing cryonics unless they have available specific, documented information detailing that the person does not want to be cryopreserved due to deeply-considered personal or religious reasons.
People don't need a specific reason to decide their own fate, any credible statement is enough. If cryonics worked (almost) 100%, counselling (like in the case of euthanasia, which forgoing cryonics would effectively be) might be in order, though.
Cryonics should be the default, the first thought on everyone's mind when it seems someone cannot make it by current tech -- not the last thought on anyone's mind, the way it is today.
Yes, if routine preservation were economically, techically and politically feasible. As long as it is not, we should work on those problems. As long as it is impossible and not wanted, it cannot become mainstream.
Also, cryonics should be routinely practiced in hospitals by hospital staff. The fact that we generally have to use non-medically-trained volunteers to get anything approaching a good suspension is rather appalling.
I think those are two seperate points: why does Alcor & co not employ doctors to help with suspensions? Is it a matter of money or are there no willing professionals? I don't think there's any law stopping them.
OTOH the issue with hospitals is probably rooted more in policy and politics (and possibly economics + feasibilty when talking about routine suspensions)
Edited by kismet, 17 August 2009 - 02:47 PM.