Cryonics

I am writing to express my feelings on the article (Part A, Sept. 15) regarding Thomas Donaldson’s suit for the right to have his head frozen before death. It seems that his reasons are valid, while at the same time the chances of medical technology advancing to the point where he can be successfully revived, cured of his tumor and a body created for his head seem extremely unlikely. Even if he were to opt for full body suspension, it still seems like a lot to hope for.

Requests like Donaldson’s raise a number of difficult issues that should be addressed in the wills of persons desiring cryonic suspension. Issues such as, exactly who shall decide when the technology is sufficiently advanced to attempt revival, and under what circumstances or by whom should a decision be made to discontinue revival efforts need to be considered. Also, what happens if the company no longer wishes or is able to continue suspension service? Who will be responsible for carrying out the treatment for these people? It seems that the courts need to consider all of these issues.

SUMMER SMITH

Laguna Niguel