Its not really a way to directly cheat death, more of a way to give doctors more time to work. I see no problem with this at all.

What I do see a problem with is consciousness. We know far too little about it right now. This process could give us insight into what makes humans aware.

Just think about it. Zero brain activity for ten minutes, what happens to "you", the awareness that makes up your self? Would you exist as a soul, bound to your body and drawn back to it? Or might you cease to be, with a different conscious entity taking up residence when they push the button?

This is what really scares me.

Erm... whatever makes you think is somehow stored inside your head. When you die it's quite probably all your memories are stored in your brain (they're stored somehow).



This is a very interesting point. I had the same thought when discussing the transporters in Star Trek. But it would in effect be "you" it'd have your memories and such, so to anyone outside it would be you. Of course whether it's the same consiousness is a very good question. Keeping off the religion side of things and assuming you're consiousness does not go anywhere. It could be "you" maybe it'd be like being in a coma?

I'm all up for scientific advancement. But I'm also up for being aware of the dangers. That's why I have posted what I could see go wrong.

I'm also up for a zombie Pope. He can tell us what his home boy, God, is like.

Even in a coma, there is still brain activity... I'm not sure, but I don't think anyones been brought back from being brain-dead.

Anovis, I think you are believing this medical practice as some sort of powerful "resurrection" ritual.



So? Our population is growing so fast anyway as new medicines and medical aid comes out.



This isn't immortality from aging. There is probably a point when a body is so aged, he/she can't be brought back to life.



That's a weak point. If a soldier gets his arms/legs/eyes/head/ etc blown off, he won't be able to fight....



.....that makes no sense. If someone is sentenced to death, they will make sure he/she is gone for good. The cops aren't soldiers...they aren't shooting every criminal they see. And no criminal wants to spend time in prison.



Err, what? That's is a vague idea. What makes you think so? If some I know was "killed," I would love to see them back again.

Nope. I use the term as it is ment to be, my friend. Reviving someone from the dead. It's also a medical practice, though.

This is found in cardio pulmonary resucitation, or CPR...etc.

I'm pretty sure a clinically dead person cannot be revived with CPR.

The word "death" doesn't really apply to this at the moment, as the process could redefine what death really is. Death is the termination of life, but termination means the end... so what happens when it is resumed?


Pause ||
Play |>

/shrug

*sighs*

1.) True, and it will only continue to increase. But this just makes it more accelerated.

2.) That's a good point, but both of us need to be reminded that we are not scientist and don't know what will happen. You're probally right on this, though.

3.) More and more I am doubting that people will blow off limbs. Usually attacks are aimed in other places. I may be wrong on this though.

4.) Ok you make no sense. Why would criminals only be killed forever? My point is that who cares if they killed someone...they're alive now. No need to make a big fuss about it. Right? I reference you to above post I have made in debating this.

5.) I know. That way you can be happy forever and ever, wouldn't you? You would never mourn the loss of someone dear to you. And because of that, you will lose touch with what you love. Why? Well, how can you be happy if you do not know how to be sad?

Attacks aimed at other places of the body...like the groin?:confused:

I'm sure new missiles and rockets can wipe out alot of people for good. Nuclear attacks on troops and people would pretty much get rid of them. And why would you "doubt" people aim to destroy limbs? Future armys would use less explosions to stop enemies in combat?



But what about pain and suffering? Civil unrest? These are all high concerns for the police. A person may be able to survive a shot from a gun these days, but an incident like that will remain as an alarming matter (most of the time) for the police. If the victim survives the incident, the suffering will not remain unpunished. The police department won't say, "Oh well, the victim got shot several times in this area. No big deal. No need to worry about the crime rate..."

And I pretty sure a crime is a crime. If someone attempts to murder someone, he would not face a weaker punishment if the victim has a higher rate of survival. And the criminal stills needs to be behind bars to prevent any further troubles in the community...



That seems poetic. But I fail to see how this applies in real life. It doesn't support the idea you made earlier.

"This will bring lots of suffering more than good."



If my house burned down, I would be sad. There goes all my personal possessions in the fire. If my dog was hit by a truck (well, to the point where the body is pretty much destroyed) I would be sad. Etc...

Okay to your reply, the "poetic" thing you were talking about. You may just be not connecting what I'm saying in both cases together. This could bring a lot more suffering than good in which how can you be happy? Everything's alive! (I know this seems necromantic, but bare with me)

When I said "How can you be happy if you're never sad anymore," I ment "How can you know the Light Side of the Force without seeing the Dark?" My argument is, how do you define "happy" without knowing depression, anger, sorrow...

But anyways, most of my arguments have already been argued out if you read above on Page 2. So, right now I'm just playing along


anyways, last thing:

OMG!!!!!!11! YOU CAN REVIVE YOUR DOG!!!! You won't be sad.

Not if its "to the point where the body is pretty much destroyed".

This whole zombification thing doesn't seem like it would work unless the person died from blood loss...am I missing something?

Anovis, all you have to do is shoot the person in the head. I highly doubt we'd be seeing a whole lot of people coming back after being murdered. Once they're "dead" and on the ground you can do all sorts of things to keep them from being zombified.

Holy SCHEMOLY I haven't even thought of that.

I'm a scientist to the core, so I'd like at least one case study. For future practical application, I'll pass. I think it's the recipe of global mental ****edness.

Woah, you guys are giving this more credit than it deserves. This isn't a magic 'revive.' Most of the time when people die, there's something wrong with them that stops them from living. Getting shot, liver failure, being too old, whatever. This procedure won't bring them back to life. Your dog gets hit by a car? This thing isn't going to heal internal injuries and broken bones. It may work for things like drownings, where the brain shuts down from lack of oxygen, but beyond that? Not many possibilities.

Note that this technology is being developed for cryogenic purposes, not for immortality.

Um... this isn't magic, you know.

Vinny, what their saying is that they can take a critical case, some one who just dies from some sort of trauma, like a gun shot, do this procedure then get them to a hospital where they can try to fix the trauma. It might give doctors more time to preform emerceny surgery in some cases.

Hm, I missed that. But still, if you get shot in a vital organ (which is pretty much the only way to actually die from a gunshot wound), it'd be pretty tough to fix. And if you die from loss of blood? They have to replace your blood for the treatment to work, how are they going to get enough? It would require massive amounts of donated blood to have any use in a combat situation. This technology still isn't the Get Out of Death Card some of you are making it out to be.

FRANKENWEENIE!

Too many assumptions/theories here. Good arguments, but the fact of the matter remains that these scientists know more than everyone here combined, and therefore know what the outcomes and possibilities are. This isnt a sci-fi movie, some of you are making it seem like it is, or that it is what it will turn out to be like.

Don't zombies get full?




Sorry.
Anyhoo... This process is a lot more likely to become fully functional and available to the public than cryogenic freezing. Sure, you can dip stuff in liquid nitrogen, and it will be preserved as long as it remains that cold because decomposers can't survive at that temperature. Unless one evolves as such, but that's another story. When you freeze something, ice crystals form, right? The ice crystals actually damage the cell tissue, so while the body is preserved, you can't unfreeze it without destroying it. Even after a few hours, as in the dog article, the dogs' innards would have been turned to mush by the freezing. The solution thingy seems to be much more effective, because the temperature remains above 0 so ice crystals don't form.

And let's not talk about playing God, okay?

[EDIT]
As for the playing God thing, our using medicines and therpeutic techniques is no different from millenia ago when people used simple salves and herbs and stuff to treat wounds and aches. If this solution-thing is playing God, then humans have been playing God since we discovered that the Earth wasn't flat. Or maybe even before that.

This salt solution technique isn't anything new. Egyptians... fisheries... they use salt or salt solutions to preserve mummies and fish, respectively. Or used, in the case of Egypt... but still... it's nothing new... I guess it comes as a shock because people haven't had the guts to use a salt and then try to revive anything as smart as a dog, until now.
[/EDIT]

I never said it was. Never.

Vinny puts up a good arguement. Please be reminded folks, that I am only posting what I see that can go wrong. I'm actually totally up for this idea. As long as we're careful.

What people seem to forget is that most of these dogs came out really messed up, phyiscally or behaviorally. Only a few of the test dogs appeared normal. If a dog becomes behaviorally disturbed how much more a human, with such a much more intricatly complex brain? These people would probably have serious psychological problems and/or severe physical handicaps.

The two articles I read on this said the dogs came out perfectly fine.

"Tests show they are perfectly normal, with no brain damage."

I agree with Vinny. Plus, there are lots of folks out there who already have physical or psychological handicaps, but they manage, right? I shouldn't speak for them, but I believe that life is precious, no matter how you live it. Of course, that's incredibly biased, because I have no idea what it would be like without life. That might be precious too.

yeah, the first few human test subjects may end up like Terry Shiavo did---technically alive but not really conscious.

I know death is a tragic and hard thing, but I would rather somebody close to me stayed dead rather than come back psychologically disturbed or physically disabled. I mean, they wouldn't be the same. And this isn't because I don't value human life that I feel this way. It's because I do. If someone dies, I would rather let them rest in peace and remember them as they were and how good their life was rather than bring them back from death in God-knows-what condition for my own selfish reasons or feelings.

Why does one article say the dogs were messed up, but the other say they were all fine?

The best I can figure, nazi conspiracy cover-up.

It is the NY Post, but would even such a crappy paper make up fake quotes?

I think that's what the saline is for, saline has a lower freezing point than pure water. And the artical said that the minor amount of tissue damage that could occur can be fixed with surgery.

I'm sorry, did any of you people against it read the bloody article?

I'm probably rehashing some things Vinny said, and a few other people, but this isn't magic. The person also ISN'T DEAD. Lets repeat this together. THE PERSON. IS NOT. DEAD. They have not been shot through the head, died of liver cancer, heart attack, lung disease, nor have they been sent to the great beyond via Mr. Green in the Conservatory with a socket wrench.

I'm going to type slowly, to ensure that everyone understands. The doctors place the patient in a state similar to death; no heartbeat, near zero brain activity, etc. But it's just like cryogenically freezing someone. This procedure can not bring a person back from death. If they're dead, it can not bring them back. If the person is dyING, however, they can perform this procedure which, let me stress once more, does not actually KILL them, and then the doctors have more time to operate and attempt to heal whatever was about to kill kill the patient. Once this is done, the doctors can revive the patient, which is NOT the same as bringing them back from the dead.

There is no bringing back from the dead, the state is just quite similar to death.


Also: SM_Trige- I'm not exactly sure where you stumbled upon the name Herbert West, but let me give you the heads up. Herbert West is a fictional character from a fictional story called Herbert West: Reanimator, written by HP Lovecraft before the turn of the 20th century. I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate to use the fictional events in a fictional story performed by a fictional character to base your fact and opinions off of.

Anyway. I think the people that have religious qualms about this need to think about it a bit more, the person hasn't been dead. You aren't really killing the person, and you're actually improving the chances of SAVING the person. Are you against all modern medicine? If you are, good for you for standing up for your morals and beliefs. If you aren't, where can you draw the line?

And if you drew the line here, you really should redraw it someone else, because the defribulator actaully brings people back from dead dead, instead of sortofdead.

And to the people who say that they'd have some sort of mental handicap afterwards, to this I say:

Dud, these dogs actually ARE dead. They've got no blood, only saline solution, for 3 hours. Heart isn't beating, nothing. They're "dead."

This takes LARPing as a D&D cleric to a whole new level.

Magic Missile!

I have boots of escaping!

Come again, happydud? :p
Because we religious folk are ignorant dumb hillbillies who can't think for ourselves.

Seriously, stop being so flippin' arrogant.

Because your brain doesn't work while you are dead. Its your soul that leaves. So of course you wouldn't remember anything. This would prove nothing if they don't remember anything. Your brain would not be functioning in the period of unconciousness.

Because we all know guns don't kill people.

Does that have anything to do with what happydud said?