There’s a very important legal distinction, which leads to some moderately inconvenient practical constraints. (Disclaimer: I’m neither a lawyer nor one of the science guys; if I’ve made a mistake here Aurelia will step in to correct me.)
When preserving an animal, it’s OK for us to administer euthasol, wait for the animal to be solidly unconscious, and then begin the surgical process of connecting the pumps that perfuse fixation chemicals. In terms of timing, this is great. It means that we can switch smoothly from the heart to the pumps, like you would during a surgical heart bypass. That’s a pre-mortem procedure.
With humans, on the other hand, there are (reasonably enough) a lot more restrictions on what’s legal to do. You can’t just hook someone up to a heart bypass and administer drugs that would stop their heart, even if they’re terminally ill and consenting. (You can imagine a world where there was a legal carveout for preservation, but it’s a new technology and no one has seriously considered building such a legal carveout.) Instead, you need the terminally ill client to orally consume MAiD medication. Preservation procedures can only begin once legal death is declared. It’s still possible to perform a quality preservation under those conditions, but it imposes a much stricter timeline.
Am I right in inferring that the central problem here is that a lot of places are defining “no heartbeat” as being legally dead, and that is where the problems enter?
Otherwise, why do they even need to be declared dead? Given the full intention of reanimating the person in question, what’s the distinction between this and a medically induced coma? Or the concrete cases of a naturally occurring coma with a person being declared dead but waking up at the last second? Or just a really, really long active medical procedure, leaning on the heart bypass example?
Another relevant edge case: what about that continuous flow total artificial heart company? There’s at least one guy wandering around with no heartbeat, but alive.
Given the full intention of reanimating the person in question, what’s the distinction between this and a medically induced coma?
This is a really interesting question, and one we’ve discussed a lot! I think it would be a very reasonable legal ruling to say that this counted as a kind of long-term medically induced coma. But no one has made that legal argument yet, and we’re committed to complying with the law as it stands.
(Minor science point: euthasol wouldn’t be administered in a premortem procedure; it’s a euthanizing drug, so it’s only for the postmortem procedures. Anesthesia/sedation chemicals like ketamine/xylazine would be used for a premortem procedure. Otherwise, you got it all right.)
There’s a very important legal distinction, which leads to some moderately inconvenient practical constraints. (Disclaimer: I’m neither a lawyer nor one of the science guys; if I’ve made a mistake here Aurelia will step in to correct me.)
When preserving an animal, it’s OK for us to administer euthasol, wait for the animal to be solidly unconscious, and then begin the surgical process of connecting the pumps that perfuse fixation chemicals. In terms of timing, this is great. It means that we can switch smoothly from the heart to the pumps, like you would during a surgical heart bypass. That’s a pre-mortem procedure.
With humans, on the other hand, there are (reasonably enough) a lot more restrictions on what’s legal to do. You can’t just hook someone up to a heart bypass and administer drugs that would stop their heart, even if they’re terminally ill and consenting. (You can imagine a world where there was a legal carveout for preservation, but it’s a new technology and no one has seriously considered building such a legal carveout.) Instead, you need the terminally ill client to orally consume MAiD medication. Preservation procedures can only begin once legal death is declared. It’s still possible to perform a quality preservation under those conditions, but it imposes a much stricter timeline.
Am I right in inferring that the central problem here is that a lot of places are defining “no heartbeat” as being legally dead, and that is where the problems enter?
Otherwise, why do they even need to be declared dead? Given the full intention of reanimating the person in question, what’s the distinction between this and a medically induced coma? Or the concrete cases of a naturally occurring coma with a person being declared dead but waking up at the last second? Or just a really, really long active medical procedure, leaning on the heart bypass example?
Another relevant edge case: what about that continuous flow total artificial heart company? There’s at least one guy wandering around with no heartbeat, but alive.
This is a really interesting question, and one we’ve discussed a lot! I think it would be a very reasonable legal ruling to say that this counted as a kind of long-term medically induced coma. But no one has made that legal argument yet, and we’re committed to complying with the law as it stands.
Very reasonable position. It would be great to see a post on the legal investigation at some point, if the team can spare the time.
I’ll add it to our list of potential posts!
(Minor science point: euthasol wouldn’t be administered in a premortem procedure; it’s a euthanizing drug, so it’s only for the postmortem procedures. Anesthesia/sedation chemicals like ketamine/xylazine would be used for a premortem procedure. Otherwise, you got it all right.)
Thanks Anna! (Anna here is Nectome’s lab manager and is, of course, correct on the science.)