En este estudio, Marta Sandberg, comenta que partiendo del hecho de que la Criopreservación Humana es hoy día una práctica minoritaria, y en gran medida ignoramos las críticas informadas de las personas que la rechazan, es fundamental que analicemos cuidadosamente nuestro propio desempeño. A veces, los resultados no serán bienvenidos cuando choquen con nuestras creencias. Pero este es el camino para conocer la realidad, y sólo una vez que sepamos y aceptemos nuestros problemas podemos resolverlos de manera efectiva.
Un área que es crítica para conseguir la criopreservación mejor posible, es el proceso previo, de espera, ya que permite que la perfusión y el enfriamiento se realicen de la forma más eficiente posible.
Marta hizo, hace casi una década, un análisis de las tasas de espera para los pacientes de Alcor. Los resultados fueron mucho peores de lo que ella preveía. Sólo la mitad de los pacientes recibió atención previa, de espera. Desde entonces Marta realiza actualizaciones periódicas del análisis. Los resultados no han mejorado.
Esta revisión es del 29 de enero de 2019.
Percentage of Alcor patients that received standby from December 2002 to January 2019
I examined the case reports of all Alcor patients from December 2002 to the present from the Alcor’s website at<http://www.alcor.org/cases.html>. Of 108 cases, a hundred-two had sufficient information to determine if standby had occurred. From this data I have compiled the graph above and a summary of standby success and a brief description for each case that is included at the end of this post.
Although the success rate varies widely year to year, overall only 47% of Alcor’s patients received standby.
This is not a criticism of Alcor. Quite the opposite. If Alcor, who puts so much effort into standby can only achieve less than fifty percent success rate, then it is hard to imagine any other organization will do better. There appears to be deep-seated inherent problems with cryonic standby.
It is significant that the overall rate of success has not improved despite Alcor adopting various initiatives to increase their standby rates – financially subsidizing some terminal members to relocate to Scottsdale, the growth of professional standby organizations, developing standby capabilities for overseas members etc.
This stubborn problem with a cryonic organization providing standby leads to the unpleasant conclusion that at least half of all current cryonicists will die without standby.
However, if you look at the individual cases, reading both Alcor and CI casefiles, it shows that people who have taken personal charge of their arrangements can substantially improve their outcome. This is one of the important lessons that can be learned from this analysis.
The most important factor seems to be making certain that your family, friend and colleagues know that you are a cryonicist and are willing to support your choice even if they don’t agree with it. They should also know what they can do if you are dead or dying.
It also helps if you personally have researched your local conditions – what is the quickest way to transport a body, where can ice and dry ice be found locally and what are their operating hours, which local funeral directors are helpful, who and how can death be officially established. Assuming that a non-local cryonic company will know these things can lead to delays and complications.
It is entirely possible to arrange for a successful standby using only local personnel, without the official involvement of a cryonic organization or a group like SA.
A good case report that shows what and how this can be arranged is Robert Ettinger’s. It can be found at CI’s website at http://www.cryonics.org/case-reports/the-cryonics-institutes-103rd-patient-1. This protocol very closely followed what I arranged for my husband Helmer and in both cases perfusion was timely and the results very good.
Descriptions of other ‘private’ standby arrangements – sometimes to supplement ‘professional’ arrangements and sometimes instead of them – indicates that they are often successful, but as they are not consistently reported it is impossible to formally calculate their overall success rate.
However, all types of standby arrangements face problems and can result in bad suspensions or straight freezes.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it is challenging to significantly improve standby rates until cryonics becomes generally accepted and every doctor, ambulance crew and emergency room considers suspension as part of its arsenal to save their patients.
To provide standby – particularly medical grade standby as Alcor is aspiring to – is very difficult. Cryonics is a small movement with only about a thousand active cryonicists. These are spread around the world, as are our new patients. Compare that with conventional medicine that employs millions of people to provide ambulances, paramedics, hospitals, doctors and palliative care in almost every community in Western countries. Yet they do not attempt to be there at the moment of death of every person.
If standby will only be available for less than half of all cryonicists, then this has implications for a good suspension and there is a case for developing a range of different protocols for these cases. That has to include research into the effect of delayed perfusion. This research would also help with terminal patients who, quite frankly, are in a terrible state by the time they die. They may suffer from circulatory problems that make perfusion difficult and/or the dying process may have been so slow that there has been serious deterioration before death is pronounced.
In 2012 Aschwin and Chana de Wolf carried out a number of preliminary experiments on rat brains to investigate the effect of warm ischemia (for Cryonics Institute and LongeCity). The report of the experiment was published in Long Life magazine <https://bit.ly/2SHXQIO> (Vol 45; Issue 1, pages 20 to 24, ‘Blood Substitution and Reperfusion Injury in Cryonics’). The report ended by outlining further research that is needed:
What distinguishes the use of cardiopulmonary bypass in cryonics from its use in conventional medicine is that the patient is usually not oxygenated during blood washout. This omission of oxygenation during perfusion could be hypothesized to actually prevent the kind of re-perfusion injury that we expected to occur during delayed washout. This hypothesis can be tested by not only comparing washout and no-washout protocols after various periods of warm ischemia but by further distinguishing between washout with and washout without oxygenation. Another phenomenon that has not been investigated in these experiments is the presence of hypo-perfusion. In cryonics a typical patient undergoes a prolonged agonal period prior to succumbing to disease. Low cerebral perfusion pressures should be distinguished from anoxia and the effect of these conditions on subsequent stabilization procedures such as blood washout remains unknown. Another concession that was made in our studies was to omit the administration of stabilization medications prior to the start of washout procedures. It is possible that the administration of such drugs would prolong the period of warm ischemia after which remote blood substitution is no longer beneficial.
I have not heard of any follow up research that have tackled these issues and would be grateful if someone can point me towards such research.
– – – – –
Analysing individual Alcor cases shows that whether or not a cryonicist receives standby depends on a number of circumstances – many of which are outside the control of the cryonicists or the cryonic organization.
This also explains why the success rate varies so much from year to year – whist Alcor has grown from only having a few new patients every year to expecting ten or more patients annually; the annual success rate has not stabilized. Some years Alcor was ‘luckier’ with its new patients and other ‘unlucky’ years even their most dedicated efforts could not overcome the inherent problems with standbys.
By far, the biggest category of those that did not receive standby was unexpected or sudden death – a third falls into that category (or 25 cases). They range from heart attacks to homicide and it probably is the hardest category to do anything about.
The inherent difficulty with this category can be illustrated with two cases.
The first is David Hayes (A-1712), one of the founders of SA. If anyone could expect standby followed by a good suspension it would be him. Yet he died suddenly after suffering a seizure. Despite the fact that his girlfriend, who is a cryonicist, was there when he seized and she was proactive trying to help with his suspension, it took four days before Alcor could take possession of the body. He received a straight freeze. I am not criticising Alcor’s handling of this case – they worked hard to avoid an invasive autopsy – but if someone who helped create a standby company could not get standby it is hard to see how anybody else could be better prepared.
The second case is Dr Thomas Munson (A-1217). Once again he was somebody would be expected to receive a good standby as he had served as Medical Director for Alcor in its early days. He was a doctor also would have recognized the early warning symptoms before his cardiac arrest. His son was apparently present during his fatal attack and supported his father’s decision to be suspended. Despite all of that, he died without standby. Although, once Alcor was contacted they mobilized quickly and cooldown started in just under 24 hours.
We can only accept that sudden death will always be with us. I do not see how standby can be arranged for these cases, therefore to help them it might be necessary to develop different perfusion protocols that gives them the better chance than a straight freeze.
Think outside the box.
CI has an option of perfusion administered by a funeral director and have developed a protocol for this (including description on how to prepare the formulae for the perfusion solution). Or maybe use glutaraldehyde in these types of cases. Or maybe encourage local volunteer groups. All of these are alternatives that can help.
Wearable devices that would alert your cryonic organisation if your vital signs falter has been suggested as a partial solution. But they are not yet the reliable, comfortable and affordable device that is needed by cryonicists. With an ageing and increasingly more health conscious population, there is a great deal of financial incentive to develop these devices and hopefully they might be available within a decade. It is unlikely to give enough warning to provide standby for most sudden death cases, but it will avoid the tragic instances where a cryonicist have been dead for days before their body is discovered. And they will provide peace of mind for any cryonicist who lives alone.
It is also vitally important that your family and friends know (and maybe even support) your choice of cryonics. It is important to carry simple emergency instructions that give any bystanders simple instructions on how they should react if they find you dead or dying.
When reading about individual cases, I was struck on how often Alcor was notified though a bracelet, TeleMed alert or an individual close to the patient who knew about his or her wishes. Having somebody immediately alerting your cryonic organization once you die or end up in hospital is not as good as having a standby team next to your deathbed, but it can mean the difference between a few hours or a few days before the preservation procedure is started.
Whist it is gratifying to read about cases where family or friend have contacted Alcor, or medical staff has noticed an alarm bracelet, it is also horrifying to read about a patient where a lawyer read instructions in a will – and a cremation was only narrowly avoided.
If you wish to further improve your chances, you might also consider also gathering information about cooperating funeral directors, hospitals or fellow cryonicists who can be relied on to help if you were to suddenly die. Sharing this information with your cryonic provider can help them rapidly help you. Cryonics is still, to a large extent, DIY.
One-out-of-four patients seem to be destined to fall into the sudden death category so it is important that you take precautions to still get the best suspension possible. This isn’t something that can be left to a standby or cryonic organization, but is something you have to do for yourself.
Over a quarter, or 20 patients, had long term illnesses but still did not receive standby. This is the second largest category and it blends into the previous category of unexpected death. Another way of looking at this is to say that over half of all members who did not receive standby died unexpectedly – 33% had no warning signs and 27% did but the time of death could still not be predicted with sufficient accuracy that standby could be arranged.
Once again, this is not the fault of Alcor. The final stages of a terminal disease can be almost impossible to predict. Sometime SA and Alcor have had to provide more than one standby for this reason.
Take the case of Mark Lee Miller (A-2889) who did not receive standby. Part of the case report says ‘Alcor asked Suspended Animation to visit his home to evaluate his condition in an effort to determine deployment strategies. At this time he had good oxygenation by mask. Nevertheless, Mr Miller arrested a few hours following the visit, December 31, 2015. This unexpectedly rapid decline led to a delay before cooling and stabilization could commence by SA.’
This problem is something I am well aware of as I have nursed three terminally ill persons. It is a stubborn problem that won’t go away, but once the problem is acknowledged we can start canvassing for possible solutions.
The fact that Alcor and SA suspensions contain medically trained personnel that has to be flown in exacerbates this problem. It also means that standby for overseas cases will have very long lead-time.
Medically trained staff is expensive and the very long standbys that Alcor used to pull when all the personnel were volunteers are a lot more difficult to achieve today. It therefore becomes important to try to predict the moment of death as tightly as possible and this is hard, verging on the impossible.
On top of this, it is Alcor who decides if a standby is warranted it can often take a day or more from the time the family contacts Alcor until the medical facts are verified and a standby team called in and arrive on the scene. As the teams have to be flown into the area it means that there is a critical time-delay between calling a standby and having it set up on site.. There isn’t always that much warning.
Incidentally, in cases like this, the local standby that many CI members arrange can be activated quicker. In many cases within the hour. This can also provide an edge for unexpected deaths. Sometime standby is still impossible, but the suspension process can be begun much quicker than for centrally managed cases.
I am not criticising Alcor for not being able to provide standby, but I am pointing out that different ways of doing things have different advantages. Maybe the best solution is a hybrid with both ‘professional’ standby teams and local volunteers could be considered. However, before this can even be considered the real intractability of the problem have to be acknowledged.
I can only urge the managements of ALL cryonic organisations to try to learn from each other and accept anything that works. It would be tragic if ‘barracking for your team’ prevented good solutions to be adopted across organisational barriers.
One recent positive development has been the use of legalized euthanasia. Alcor had their first case using the Death With Dignity legislation last October. With changing popular opinion and legal frameworks, more and more regions are allowing patients to decide their own time of death. Euthanasia not only makes standby more predictable, but it can also reduce the biological damage sustained during a prolonged dying process.
How this will affect the future of standby for cryonics is unclear. It should be noted that passive euthanasia – the denial of all medical aids and even the refusal of food and drink – has been legal in Western countries for decades, yet very few cryonicists have chosen to utilize this option when dying. There may be something in the psychology of cryonic patients that makes hastening the moment of death unpalatable, even when they are clearly dying anyway.
From the other side of the spectrum, ten patients, or 13%, were post-mortem cases. This is a surprisingly small number under the circumstances.
In an earlier analysis, I showed that about half of all Alcor’s members only signed up for cryonics when they already were dying. Quite a few of those waited until they were dead or very close to death. This means that last minute cases will remain a reality that all cryonic organizations will have to deal with.
That this category isn’t larger is something that Alcor should be proud over, but they have shown a remarkable ability to quickly sing up a patient and arrange a standby for those that only have days left to live when they contact Alcor. But there is a limit to how far this can be taken.
Providing standby for post-mortem patients is obviously impossible and last minute cases can be challenging. This is something that will continue to happen and they often results in a straight freeze.
It is another category where different organisations have developed different ways of trying to provide the best possible outcome and I cannot help thinking that greater cooperation between different cryonic organisations would greatly facilitate this. There also needs to be greater flexibility as there almost certainly isn’t one ‘best method’ or one ‘best perfusion protocol’. Most of the suggestions given previously also apply to this category.
Seven of the cases , or 10%, that did not receive standby happened outside mainland USA – France, Mexico, Czech Republic, UK, Hawaii, Barbados and Canada.
This is one of the areas where Alcor have markedly improved. Since 2015 there have been four successful overseas cases. One patient was relocated from Germany and three in England, China and Thailand, received standby by Alcor or UK Cryonics.
However, either of these approaches appears to be expensive and only possible if there is a long lead-time before the patient deanimates. It is also inherently more difficult to provide standby in a foreign country and in at least one case (A-2694) it failed totally despite spending a lot of resources trying.
A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that somewhere around a quarter of all cryonicists live outside USA, so this is a significant problem. It also affects any American cryonicist who holidays outside mainland USA. One or two straight frozen Alcor patients have fallen into this category.
I many ways this seems to be a problem that might best be dealt with by forming and training local groups that provide on-site help. This can also serve as a focus of cryonic interest in the country, lead to a growth of cryonics in that country and maybe even lead to the development of their own independent cryonic organization.
The existence of an Australian cryonic group called Cryonic Association of Australasia (CAA) that helped Australians who was signed up with cryonic organizations in the US, was instrumental in forming Neural Archive Foundation (NAF) that currently have more than half a dozen patients. NAF is not a full scale cryonic organization as it only stores straight frozen brains.
Let me go slightly off-topic by saying that for a new help group to form outside USA it is important that members of all US cryonic organisation are welcome. Otherwise the numbers drop so low that it is hard for it to function. It is therefore important that cryonicists outside the US learn to set aside any rivalries between cryonic organizations and instead concentrate on their considerably problems and ideals that all cryonicists share.
Four of the cases, or 5%, there were a great deal of resistance from the patient’s family that prevented standbys and compromised the suspension. There is no easy solution to this. We simply have to accept that there are people who have very strong negative feeling about cryonics and be grateful we haven’t had to deal with more family opposition. If the member cannot do anything to alter their family’s position, maybe it will help if they contact their cryonic organization is contacted so they know of the potential problem.
Finally, there were nine cases, or 12%, that does not fall into any of the above categories. They range from storms that delayed flights to uncooperative medical personal and suicide. . This just underlines the need to be flexible when dealing with cases as nothing can ever be taken for granted. In most cases they were only a contributing factors that and there were others reasons that also caused the lack of standby.
In about ten percent of the cases I examined there where more than one reason that prevented a standby – for example a member who died suddenly whilst holidaying in Barbados.
To allow a better and deeper understanding of the underlying problems – that will not go away – I have included a summary of the last 105 cases below.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Summary of standby status of Alcor cases
This is a summary of the standby status for all cases from December 2002 to January 2019. In each case I have said if they received standby, the patient number (so each case can be linked to the data given on the Alcor website) as well as a few phrases about each case.
For some cases only very sketchy information is given so I may have misunderstood the situation.
When there it is not clear if standby has occurred I have tried to be generous.
NO Case A-1661 (Found dead)
YES Case A-1990 (Death With Dignity legislation used to pre-determine time of death)
YES Case A-2811 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale. ICE provided standby)
YES Case A-2067 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale. ICE provided standby)
NO INFORMATION Case A-3152 (There is only a four line summary. This case is not included in my statistics)
NO Case A-2887 (Long term kidney failure, but death still unexpected. Straight freeze)
YES Case A-1334 (Long-term illness. SA provided standby)
YES Case A-1377 (Long-term illness. SA provided standby)
NO Case A-1395 (History of stroke. Choked to death on a piece of steak at home)
YES Case A-1547 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale)
NO Case A-1988 (Long term illness. Patients died unexpectedly at night in hospital)
NO Case A-3079 (Overseas patient, probably France and last minute case. Straight frozen)
NO Case A-1879 (History of strokes. New stroke. Straight frozen)
NO Case A-1649 (Long term illness, but died unexpectedly at home)
YES Case A-1151 (Patient died in hospital with advance warning. SA provided standby)
NO Case A-2998 (Post-mortem case from Mexico. Straight frozen)
NO Case A-1154 (Found dead. Straight frozen)
NO Case A-1175 (Suicide. Although an autopsy was prevented it took about a week before the body was straight frozen)
NO Case A-1765 (Limited information. Patients apparently fell and died later in hospital but it resulted in a straight freeze. Possibly because family/Alcor not notified until patient had died. Autopsy avoided)
NO INFORMATION Case A-1495 (There is only a three line summary. This case is not included in my statistics)
YES Case A-1221 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale. Standby initiated and discontinued when patient improved. Final standby initiated three months later. This case caused a non-cryonicist to raise concern about the ethics of cryonics)
NO Case A-1700 (Sudden death. Alcor notified by a friend the day after death. Probably straight freeze)
NO Case A-2889 (Long term illness. Intended to relocate, but never carried through. Had been evaluated hours before death by SA who did not initiate standby as patient seemed stable)
PARTIAL YES Case A-2878 (Long term illness. English patient. Intended to relocate, but never carried through. Stabilisation and cool down was performed by Cryonics UK with limited personal as Aaron Drake arrived too late from the US)
YES Case A-1497 (Long term illness. SA provided standby)
NO Case A-1624 (Long term illness but death, through cardiac arrest, apparently sudden. Won his suspension through OMNI contest, wore a bracelet but did not further contact Alcor)
NO Case A-2019 (Long term illness. As he used alternative treatment there never was sufficient medical advice available to initiate a standby)
YES Case A-2833 (Aaron Drake flew to China to provide standby, perfusion and cooldown to dry ice temperature)
YES Case A-2813 (Signed up when already terminal. SA provided two standbys as he recovered the first time)
NO Case A-2830 (Post-mortem case. One day delay but perfusion attempted)
NO Case A-1245 (Sudden death. Straight freeze after a five days delay. Lawsuit initiated over neuro/whole body status of patient)
YES Case A-2789 (Long-term illness. Relocation to Scottsdale failed due to patient’s medical condition.. A complicated and successful standby was done in Thailand)
YES Case A-2788 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale from Germany)
NO Case A-1350 (Limited information, but patient apparently died alone at home and was not discovered for 12 hours.)
YES Case A-2786 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale)
NO Case A-2745 (Long term Illness. Intended to relocate, but never carried through)
EFFECTIVELY NO Case A-2454 (Sudden respiratory arrest due to choking. Patient placed in a respirator for 36 hours before being declared dead. Standby team arrived during this time, but effectively straight frozen due to severe cerebral edema.)
YES Case A-1436 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale. Passive euthanasia)
YES Case A-1963 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale)
NO Case A-2680 (Sudden death. Straight freeze after two days delay to establish natural causes. Invasive autopsy avoided)
NO Case A-2578 (Post-mortem case. Brain chemically preserved and stored for one-and-a-half month before accepted as a patient by Alcor)
NO Case A-2531 (Suicide. Autopsy avoided)
YES Case A-2740 (Long-term illness. Standby initially by SA, patent then relocated to Scottsdale)
YES Case A-2157 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale. SA provided standby)
PROBABLY NO Case A-1117 (Almost no information, but probably no standby)
NO Case A-2699 (Suicide. Autopsy. Only brain stored as life insurance invalidated by suicide)
PROBABLY YES Case A-2030 (Very limited information. Relocated to Scottsdale. Probably standby by SA, but part of the case notes said ‘this case provides yet another illustration of the uncertainty over the timing of a patient’s final decline. Very early on November 21, the patient’s doctor said that the patient was not in immediate danger. However, the patient declined overnight, was intubated in the ICU in the morning, and pronounced later that day’)
NO Case A-2694 (Czech Republic member. Despite paying extra, standby not achieved. No field washout. Straight freeze/thaw/freeze after a delay of days)
YES Case A-3419 (Long-term illness. Standby by SA)
YES Case A-2605 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale)
PROBABLY YES Case A-1349 (Very limited information. Probably standby by SA)
NO Case A-2643 (Long-term illness, but late sign up so no normal standby. Moved to the Scottsdale area prior to death and Alcor notified immediately after death and arrived ‘almost immediately’ but a one hour delay in pronouncing death)
NO Case A-1646 (Sudden death, resulting from robbery. Non-invasive autopsy only. Straight freeze)
NO Case A-2628 (Post-mortem. Some perfusion attempted one-to-two days after death)
YES Case A-1002 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale)
NO Case A-1277 (Long term illness. There was reluctance from the family to informing the medical staff about cryonics)
PARTIAL YES Case A-1546 (Long-term illness. Too late to call in an SA team but Aaron Drake present with a mini-med kit)
EFFECTIVELY NO Case A-1088 (Patient effectively died from ruptured brain aneurysm on 28 October, but was not declared ‘brain dead’ and life support removed until 30 October. By that time an SA standby team was on hand who did field stabilization and attempted washout with limited success due to compromised blood flow of the brain)
YES Case A-2091 (Long-term illness. Standby by SA)
YES Case A-2357 (Long-term illness. Patient lived in Scottsdale area. Earlier standby called off as patient improved. Second standby called as patient deteriorated again)
YES Case A-1408 (Long-term illness. Earlier Alcor standby called off as patient stabilised. Second standby by SA called as patient deteriorated again)
YES Case A-2478 (Precent Alcor member)
YES Case A-1203 (Long term illness)
PROBABLY NO Case A-2158 (Long term illness describes as ‘a roller coaster of health issues’. Not considered ill enough to launch a standby but a mini-med kit placed in his home. Very limited information regarding post-mortem timeline and procedure, but despite the patient being a whole-body patient the head and body had to be separated for logistical reasons to facilitate transport to Alcor and avoid a straight freeze)
NO Case A-2098 (Patient died and was buried without Alcor being informed. Three months later, when Alcor found out, Alcor gained permission to exhume the body and freeze the remains after a lengthy legal battle. This is one of those cases where local arrangements might have prevented a tragedy)
YES Case A-1556 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale)
YES Case A-2371 (Long-term illness. Earlier eight-day standby called off as potent improved. Second standby called)
YES Case A-1608 (Long-term illness. Patient lived in Scottsdale area – had followed Alcor’s move to Arizona)
YES Case A-1614 (Long-term illness. Patient relocated to Scottsdale area when diagnosed as terminal)
YES Case A-2361 (Long-term illness. Patient lived in Scottsdale whist terminal)
NO Case A-1712 (Sudden death. Only virtual autopsy. Straight freeze.)
NO Case A-1926 (Family opposed to cryonics, after a legal battle Alcor gained the right to take possession of the patient. Straight frozen to dry ice temperatures two days after death)
NO Case A-2469 (Post-mortem. Straight freeze.)
NO Case A-2219 (Unexpected death. Limited autopsy. Straight freeze. Several days delay before cooldown began)
YES Case A-2435 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale)
YES Case A-2420 (Long-term illness. Standby by SA)
NO Case A-2061 (Long-term illness. Mini-medication kit , but standby never initiated)
NO Case A-2404 (UK patient. Almost last-minute case, but due to lengthy sign-up, became post-mortem case. Straight freeze.)
NO Case A-1407 (Sudden death. Holidaying in Barbados. Straight freeze)
NO Case A-1212 (Limited warning before death. Died in Hawaii. It is unclear if member lived in Hawaii or was on holiday. Straight freeze)
NO Case A-1831 (Long-term illness. Standby initiated twice called off as patient rallied. No time to restart standby when patient declined again)
PROBABLY NO Case A-1026 (Long-term illness, no standby but transport vehicle and personnel on site quickly. Perfusion at Alcor begins 18½ hours after death)
NO Case A-2340 (Last minute case)
NO Case A-1864 (Homicide. Autopsy)
NO Case A-2309 (Last minute case in Canada. Straight freeze)
NO INFORMATION Case A-1411 (The only information is A-1411 | 5 April 2007 | Whole Body. This case is not included in my statistics)
NO INFORMATION Case A-2264 (The only information is A-2264 | 20 Sep 2006 | Brain. This case is not included in my statistics)
NO Case A-1237 (Unexpected death. Autopsy avoided. Straight freeze)
PARTIAL YES Case A-1356 (Long-term illness. Intended to relocate, but died suddenly from cardiac arrest. One Alcor team member accidentally on hand as she was trying to arrange relocation of patient to Arizona.)
YES Case A-1097 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale from Australia)
YES Case A-1598 (Found unconscious at home, but survived to be relocated to Scottsdale)
NO INFORMATION Case A-1398 (The only information is A-1398 | 11 Oct 2005 | Whole Body. This case is not included in my statistics)
YES Case A-2071 (Long-term illness.)
NO but this case is not included in my statistics Case A-2172 (Post-mortem case, but relatives terminated the cryopreservation before completion of paperwork)
YES Case A-2024 (Long-term illness. Standby initiated, then called off as patient rallied. Reinstated a day before patient died)
NO Case A-1321 (Alcor notified five or six days after death as patient was wearing a medic alert bracelet. Autopsy avoided. Straight freeze)
NO Case A-1099 (Long-term illness but Alcor only informed the day after death. Patient embalmed. Family opposition. Legal intervention required for release of the body)
YES Case A-2068 (Last minute case, but standby still arranged)
YES Case A-1562 (Long-term illness.)
YES Case A-1772 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale considered but decided against by family)
YES Case A-2063 (Last minute case, but standby still arranged)
NO Case A-2059 (Long-term illness. Relocated to Scottsdale one month before death. Died at night from cardiac arrest before being admitted to hospice or standby arranged)
NO INFORMATION Case A-2077 (The only information is A-2077 | 05 Dec 2003 | Brain. This case is not included in my statistics)
YES Case A-2020 (Long-term illness.)
NO Case A-1234 (Long-term illness. Standby initiated, then called off as patient rallied. Died from cardiac arrest an unspecified time later)
NO Case A-1025 (Sudden death)
NO Case A-1217 (Sudden death. He was a doctor that had been a Medical Director for Alcor and experienced symptoms before his death, but was still unable to initiate a standby in time)
NO Case A-1034 (Sudden death)
YES Case A-1235 (Long-term illness.)