Редактирование: Cryonics organisations (раздел)

=== CI Criticism ===

[[Robert Ettinger]] believed complex [[#Perfusion|perfusion]] to ensure excellent cryopreservation was not worth the effort, that future technology would eventually find a way to repair any damage. Because of this, he decided to charge a fraction of the cost of [[#Alcor|other organizations]] for basic perfusion and [[#Long Term Care|long term care]]. Ettinger claimed that "anything that has existed, can exist"<ref>Ben Best. ''The Permafrost Papers''. [http://www.cryocdn.org/perma.html Link].</ref>, meaning that it can exist again if sufficiently advanced technology is developed.
<blockquote>Robert Ettinger, founder of the cryonics movement, claims that "anything that has existed, can exist", meaning that it can exist again. For an unbounded optimist, this would mean that even a cremated person whose ashes have been scattered on the seas could conceivably be reconstructed. In this view, technology beyond our conception could gather enough evidence to reconstruct, atom-for-atom, human beings who vanished hundreds or thousands of years in the past. [...] Ettinger's Michigan-based Cryonics Institute offers suspensions for nearly a quarter of the cost of the California organizations, in part because Ettinger believes that costly perfusion procedures are unnecessary, relying more on future technology repair capabilities.[...] - Ben Best<ref>http://www.cryocdn.org/perma.html#mypci</ref></blockquote>

This unreasonable optimism has been the source of criticism<ref>[http://chronopause.com/index.php/2011/02/13/on-the-need-for-prosthetic-nocioception-in-cryonics/ Link].</ref> and is the basis of their decision to accept deceased non-Members signed up by their families, even after hours of warm ischemia. These patients now constitute the majority of CI cases and are only straight frozen.<ref="Darwin's CI criticism">http://chronopause.com/index.php/2011/02/23/does-personal-identity-survive-cryopreservation/#comment-247</ref>

<blockquote>Basically I was commenting on the operational paradigm at CI, which is pretty much “ritual.” You sign up, you get frozen and it’s pretty much kumbaya, no matter how badly things go. And they go pretty badly. Go to: http://cryonics.org/refs.html#cases and start reading the case reports posted there. That’s pretty much my working definition of horrible. It seems apparent to me that “just getting frozen” is now all that is necessary for a ticket to tomorrow, and that anything else that is done is “just gravy,” and probably unnecessary to a happy outcome.
[...]
Even in cases that CI perfuses, things go horribly wrong – often – and usually for to me bizarre and unfathomable (and careless) reasons. My dear friend and mentor Curtis Henderson was little more than straight frozen because CI President Ben Best had this idea that adding polyethylene glycol to the CPA solution would inhibit edema. - [[Mike Darwin]]<ref="Darwin's CI criticism"></blockquote>

Another criticism of the Cryonics Institute is their submission to the State of Michigan's decision that CI was a cemetery and could thus no longer perform [[#Perfusion|perfusion]] on site. Because of this cryoprotectant perfusion has to be done by a cooperative funeral direction, and in most cases these are found on the moment and are not properly trained or equipped. Instead of appealing this decision, they accepted it and surrendered control of the patients to the state, unlike Alcor which has been engaged in a variety of legal disputes, to the point of making cryonics legal in California.