Hospital’s ‘deep unease’ about charity that carried out the freezing process
A CHARITY that prepares Britons for cryogenic preservation in the US last night defended itself against accusations that it had been “disorganised” and “under-equipped” when it froze the body of British child JS.
The Human Organ Preservation Research Trust, which operates as Cryonics UK, is the only group in Britain working in the unregulated field of cryonics.
JS was the 10th Briton to undergo the procedure and the first British child.
Cryonics UK charges about £15,000 to embalm, freeze and transport a body to storage facilities in America or Russia.
The company insists that “chances are good that the treatment you will require to be revived will be available in the future – just look at how far humanity has come technologically in the past 50-100 years alone, and then project that forwards”.
But, said Mr Justice Peter Jackson in his ruling: “The scientific theory un- derlying cryonics is speculative and controversial, and there is considerable debate about its ethical implications.”
He said all the medical professionals at the hospital where JS died “feel deep unease about it”.
The judge said that when JS died on October 17, “although the preparation of JS’s body for cryogenic preservation was completed, the way in which the process was handled caused real concern to the medical and mortuary staff ”.
But Cryonics UK, whose volunteers undergo training in the procedures involved, said in a statement: “We always seek to negotiate before acting, and our protocols were carried out with the permission of the hospital.
“Whilst hospital staff on the ground were helpful, some senior staff ap- peared to be on the back foot. This may have been because they had not encountered a cryopreservation before, due to the involvement of the court, or because the patient was a minor.
“A successful outcome was achieved as a result of the determination of the family and their legal representation and the resourcefulness of Cryonics UK.”
The charity, which was set up in 1986, froze its first body in 2000, its second in 2008, and the other eight in the past three years.
Cryonics is not illegal, but it is unregulated because no mention of freezing entire bodies is made in the Human Tissue Act 2004.
The judge raised the question of whether “activities of the present kind should be brought within the regulatory framework if they showed signs of increasing”.
He said the case “also raises questions about the standing of the voluntary organisation and draws attention to possible public health concerns and the position of the coroner”.
‘The scientific theory behind cryonics is speculative and controversial. There is debate about its ethics’