Human "Suspended Animation" Trials To Start This Month 104
An anonymous reader writes in with news about a UPMC Presbyterian Hospital trial starting this month which brings us one step closer to suspended animation. "The researchers behind it don't want to call it suspended animation, but it's the most conventional way to explain it. The world's first humans trials will start at the UPMC Presbyterian Hospital in Pittsburgh, with 10 patients whose injuries would otherwise be fatal to operate on. A team of surgeons will remove the patient's blood, replacing it with a chilled saline solution that would cool the body, slowing down bodily functions and delaying death from blood loss. According to Dr. Samuel Tisherman, talking to New Scientist: 'We are suspending life, but we don't like to call it suspended animation because it sounds like science fiction... we call it emergency preservation and resuscitation.'" We covered this story a few months ago when it was announced.
Looks Like, Walks Like, Quacks Like (Score:5, Interesting)
We are suspending life, but we don't like to call it suspended animation because it sounds like science fiction... we call it emergency preservation and resuscitation.
Someone needs to remind these guys that something is only Science Fiction until it becomes Science Fact.
Nothing wrong with calling it Suspended Animation if that's EXACTLY what it is.
Re:Because obviously, (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, if you're doing real research and want to be taken seriously, I can see why you'd prefer to differentiate yourself a little.
If you said "and we'll put the patient into suspended animation", and the ethics review board rolls their eyes at you, you might have a huge problem.
Some stuff, sure, it can sound like science fiction. But for medical research, you'd think you want to make sure people know you're not just talking out of your ass.
Re:I'm not a doctor, but... (Score:0, Interesting)
It doesn't really matter, if it saves lives, it saves lives.
Well, saving a life, just to lose it 2 weeks later due to a complication is not a win....it just drags out the agony and wastes "resources" that could be used to save patients with a higher likelihood of survival. You then have to consider the neurological outcome of the patient. Do you think that living like Terry Schiavo [wikipedia.org] would be a good outcome? Some would say yes, a life is a life. Others (e.q. those who value quality of quantity) would not want that kind of outcome. But there are even worse fates...locked-in syndrome [wikipedia.org] - that I would not wish on my worst enemy.
I'm not saying that these are going to be the outcomes, just that these are potential outcomes....we have to look at them critically and ask ourselves, is it worth it? These are some of the answers they're looking for with this kind of research