A study has found that when one in four doctors consider the plausibility of preservation techniques like cryogenic freezing, they think, ‘yeah baby, that could work’.
Do you remember the hit 1997 spoof film Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery?
Allow me to refresh your memory, baby.
Secret Agent, world-class playboy and dental warning sign Austin Powers (Mike Myers) emerges after thirty years in a cryogenic state to battle his nemesis, Dr Evil.
In one of the opening scenes, he’s thawed out with laser cutting, liquid goo phase and reanimation. You can watch it again here to giggle/cringe, depending on your tolerance for nostalgia and innuendo.
Why is your humble Back Page scribe dragging you back to this shagadelic fever dream?
Because it turns out, when doctors were asked about real-world preservation techniques (less Austin Powers, more end-of-life ethics committee) just over one in four thought future revival was at least plausible.
Led by Monash University’s Dr Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston, the study surveyed 334 US physicians, nearly half primary care providers. The results were published in open-access journal PLOS One.
The aim of the survey was to address three main themes:
- the perceived feasibility of preservation procedures,
- clinical interventions that could improve preservation outcomes,
- and the ethical and legal standing of preservation as an end-of-life option.
Turns out, doctors gave a median estimate of 25.5% that preservation under ideal conditions could retain enough neural information for future revival. About 28% found future revival somewhat or very plausible, while 47% found it implausible.
Neurosurgeons, on average, rated the possibility of revival highest. Do they know something we don’t?
On ethics, many doctors saw preservation as at least potentially compatible with patient-centred end-of-life care. 58.1% agreed it could be consistent with compassionate care (20.1% disagreed), and 49.1% said they were comfortable with a cognitively intact, terminally ill patient choosing it (30% were uncomfortable).
Many doctors (70.7%) were comfortable with a low-intervention step such as giving dying patients anti-coagulants which could help with the quality of preservation.
However, fewer respondents were comfortable with more extreme procedures, such as patients going through medically assisted death and opting to begin the preservation before cardiac arrest. Doctors who regularly have end-of-life care conversations were more comfortable with this option.
This is all highly speculative, of course. As authors noted that pre-cardiac arrest preservation in humans is not legally permitted anywhere in the world. But they said if technology develops further, there might need to be clinical, legal and ethical frameworks that will need to be developed. The authors also note competing interests, including links to biostasis and brain preservation organisations.
As Zeleznikow-Johnston said: “A lot of physician hesitancy may come from simple unfamiliarity with the scientific basis of modern preservation methods. The doctors who have actually thought about this – and who regularly sit with dying patients – tend to be more receptive, not less.”
We’re guessing those whose knowledge about preservation techniques came from watching Austin Powers probably wouldn’t consider the premise plausible.
Clinically actionable? Not yet. Ethically messy? Absolutely. Groovy? Maybe.
Send shagadelic story tips to Holly@medicalrepublic.com.au.
