Relevant Facts

The plaintiff in question is Mr. Thomas Donaldson, a mathematician and computer software scientist who suffers from a space-occupying lesion called astrocytoma.  As asserted in a medical statement, `procedure to date can be effectively used to combat this legion.  Furthermore, because this tumor is both malignant and inoperable, medical doctors have proclaimed that Donalson will face inevitable death within a period of no more than five years of his initial diagnosis.

Professional Issues

Donalson’s lawyer stated in court that his client “wishes to achieve cryogenic suspension of his body, premortem, before his relentlessly advancing brain tumor destroys the quality and purpose of his life, reduces him to a vegetative state, and makes futile his hope for reanimation.”  It should be noted that Donaldson’s friend Carlos Mondragon desired to “advise and encourage” Donaldson during the cryonic suspension process if the court ruling allowed him to carry through with the procedure.  Also of interest is the fact that Donaldson would be enlisting the aid of certain cryonic professionals whose job it would be to physically carry out Donaldson’s wishes.  Although the cryonic institute or company was not directly involved in this particular court case, the inevitable fees of the operation would have introduced yet another economic factor because Donaldson would be relying on another party to both freeze and continue preserving his body in an acceptable temperature and condition.

Legal Issues

Needless to say, cryogenic suspension would entail freezing Donalson’s body, and herein lies the legal controversy of the case: Donaldson would be dead as a result.  He would [presently] experience irreversible cessation of circulatory, respiratory, and brain function, thereby meeting all the criteria of being dead under California’s statutory definition of death.  Ultimately, Donaldson would be committing suicide if he went through with cryonic suspension as planned because, as it stood then and still stands today, there is no known procedure that will successful resuscitate a human being from a cryonic state.  For all intents and purposes, and from a legal standpoint, the moment Donaldson went through this cryonic procedure, he would be dead and remain dead.  Moreover, Donaldson’s friend Mondragon (as well as the cryonic institute that would perform the cryonic procedure) would be assisting a suicide, or—to take the extreme case—he would be committing a homicide.  As such, it was incumbent of Donalson if he wished to go through the cryonic procedure that he seek “a legal declaratory and injunctive relief against the state attorney general, the Santa Barbara district attorney, and the Santa Barbar county coroner.”  Both Donaldson and Mondragon wanted the court to find that indeed Donaldson possessed “a constitutional right to premortem cryogenic suspension of his body and the assistance of others in achieving that state.”  In addition to this, Mondragon sought legal protection for himself against criminal .  Lastly, because an autopsy was likely to be performed on Donaldson upon his “death” if it were carried out, they further wanted an injunctive relief that would prevent a coroner from examining Donaldson’s body after death and thereby nullify the purpose of the cryonic procedure in the first place.

Ethical Issues

As the case stands, Donaldson’s case is a very unique one both from a legal and an ethical perspective.  For one thing, Donaldson did not see his desire to go through with the cryonic suspension of his body as suicide.  His hope, as is the same hope that many cryonic patients who join various cryonic institutes today share, is that one day his body can be later reanimated or brought back to life when a curative treatment exists for his particular brain cancer.  In contrast to his views, though, both the state attorney general and the Santa Barbara district attorney pass off his hope as wishful thinking, believing that the cryonic procedure will surely mark the termination of his life for good.  Be that as it may, Donaldson’s case presents an opportunity to superimpose various ethical perspectives, some of which are presented below and include the utilitarian perspective, the rights perspective, the fairness perspective, the common good perspective, and finally the virtue perspective.

• The Utilitarian Perspective

  In such a perspective as that of the utilitarian, the primary focus centers on the consequences which a particular policy or action will result on the well-being of all parties involved.  This perspective would seem to suggest that in Donaldson’s case, he should be able to fulfill his desire to undergo cryonic suspension because otherwise he would most likely be tormented for the remainder of his years, if even that long.  A situation that one might compare this to (and which indeed was brought up by Donaldson himself) is one in which a patient must be connected to a life support system in order to survive.  Would you deny support to such a patient even if prospects of his or her survival were slim?  Further supporting the utilitarian perspective is how Donaldson’s friend Mondragon as well as family or relatives that Donaldson might have would have felt more assured if they would not have to witness Donaldson suffer and if they knew that there was a chance that one day medical technology would exist that would allow Donaldson not only to come back to life but also live a longer life and one free of his malady.  Finally, procedures such as cryonic suspension tend to create new jobs and revenues because there will be a demand for more cryonic services if Donaldson’s case becomes a precedent and paves the way for other terminally-ill patients to have an alternative to dying.  The benefits appear to outweigh the harms.

   

• The Rights Perspective

  In addition to the utilitarian perspective, the rights perspective would also seem to support Donaldson’s decision.  From a rights viewpoint, Donaldson possesses a fundamental right to be respected as a free and rational person capable of deciding what is in his best interests.  In his case, Donaldson believes that his best alternative to living a longer and more fruitful life free from suffering is cryonic suspension.  Donaldson may further contend that he has a constitutional right to state-assisted suicide, and that Mondragon in turn has a constitutional right to aid him through advice and encouragement.  Another point that Donaldson actually made in his case was that California’s penal stature which makes it a felony to either aid, advise, or encourage another person to take their own life “unconstitutionally interferes with his right to privacy.”  He brought up the precedent case of Bouvia V. Superior Court in which it was argued that one’s right to die should “include the ability to enlist assistance from others, including the medical profession, in making death as painless and quick as possible.”  Thus, if rights were the only factor involved, then indeed Donaldson would have a very strong case.

   

• The Fairness Perspective

  If the rights perspective tends to take the view of the individual, then the fairness perspective in contrast takes a more just perspective in that it considers the consequences of an action in terms of both the benefits and the burdens that it presents to society.  Yes, it would be fair to grant Donaldson the opportunity to potentially live a better life, but at whose cost shall that be?  Even though the cryonic suspension may benefit Donaldson in this particular case, one might have to consider the ramifications of a society in which most if not all terminally-ill patients will opt to take his option.  Undoubtedly, cryonic suspension as a practice will benefit those who could ill-afford to live in pain and in constant fear of death, but doing so will present ever more burdens on the rest of society as valuable energy resources used to preserve their bodies are depleted as a result.  Supposing further that the technology to resuscitate the cryonic patients sometime in the future becomes real, society will be forced to confront the issue of scarcity as more people will be competing for the earth’s dwindling resources for food, clothing, shelter, etc.  Who should have greater priority over these resources?  Also, with most of their relatives deceased and no immediate way of supporting themselves financially, who if any will bear the burden of supporting these cryonic patients upon reanimation?  Who will pay for the cost of healing their illness, which is precisely the reason they became frozen in the first place?  Clearly, not only must the welfare of the potential cryonic patient such as Donaldson be considered, but also the welfare of future generations should be taken into account since they will most likely bear the burdens of our present shortcomings.

   

• The Common Good Perspective

  A step up from the fairness vantage point is the common good perspective, or that perspective which envisions the society as a collective community of individuals who share common goals and values.  If one uses the statement, “What is ethical is what advances the common good,” as a guiding determinant, then perhaps Donaldson’s decision to undergo cryonic suspension is unethical in the sense that his guiding motivation is not communal but rather for himself and himself alone.  His goals in this matter do not concern the advancement of society, but rather to simply to live longer than he would have under normal circumstances.  Once again, if we predict that other patients will follow Donaldson’s example, then society as a whole may face the problem of overpopulation.  Also, instead of caring for those needy individuals in the present, one may reasonably expect that the unfrozen cryonic patients will be asking for assistance.  In such a way, society would continually be trying to solve the problems of the past instead of the present, trying to remedy the illnesses of yesterday’s patients instead of focusing on today’s patients.  Therefore, ask yourself: Is cryonic technology really a step into the future, or will it become society’s weighty burden of the past?

   

• The Virtue Perspective

  One very important fact which should not be ignored is that what Donaldson is asking for in essence is a form of assisted-suicide considering how cryonic resuscitation is not yet possible.  What kind of example would the court in Donaldson’s case set if they allowed Donaldson to undergo cryonic suspension with the justification of being terminally-ill?  As stated in the trial itself, “the state has an important interest to ensure that people are not influenced to kill themselves.”  Obviously, allowing one person to commit suicide for whatever reason might soon lead others to follow suit.  Would this not lead us down a slippery slope argument in which people begin to justify cryonic suspension with the fact that they do not like or agree with their quality of life?  Clearly if such became the case, this would be contrary to the common good of all as people would no longer make the most of their present situation or resources and instead would take a “time-out” to wait for conditions to get better.  If we are ever to develop our human potential, it would seem to make more sense to devote our effort into using our time here on earth more effectively rather than trying to merely prolong it.  More is not always better; sometimes it’s just more.  To quote the virtue perspective, “What is ethical is what develops moral virtues in ourselves and our communities.”  Therefore, help yourself by helping others live a better and more meaningful life.  Invest that $30,000 which would have gone to pay for cryonic suspension fees in charities that will feed the hungry.  Allow researchers to develop new cures to save the living rather than expecting them to devote their efforts on resuscitating the dead.

   

• Thomas Donaldson – Donaldson’s future lies directly in the hands of the state court as the decision will determine whether he can or cannot pursue undergoing cryonic suspension.  If he is allowed to go through with it, he will be submitting himself to premature death in the hope of regaining his life at a future time when his cancer might be treatable, but at least that will be his decision.  So not only are his rights as an individual at stake, but also his life hangs in the balance.
• Carlos Mondragon – Next to Donaldson, Mondragon will bear a certain degree of responsibility for aiding Donaldson in what the law deems as suicide.  The court’s decision will have a direct bearing on the perception of Mondragon’s actions as criminal or not.  He can be charged with homicide if—against the court ruling—he still persists to aid Donaldson go through with the cryonic suspension.
• Cryonic Institution – Although not directly involved in this case, the court ruling will nevertheless have a resounding impact on the direction that cryonic practice will take.  For example, if the court rules against Donaldson, it will set a precedent case in which cryonic suspension can absolutely not be performed on still-living people.
• The State (Government) – Ruling in this case will have an effect on the government’s perceived role in the choices that individuals can make.  In Donaldson’s case, if the court upholds its standing laws on the prohibition of assisted-suicide, then indeed the government preserves the right to intervene in cases whereby a person wishes to take his or her own life.
• Potential Cryonic Patients – Other people will inevitably consider Donaldson’s actions as another viable option whether or not they are terminally-ill if indeed the court rules in his favor.  Rights advocates will applaud such a ruling, but such a decision may have unforeseen consequences if, say, cryonic suspension becomes a trend among society.
• Future Generations – Present day society has a limited responsibility to future generations, and cryonics may very well have a deep impact on them down the line.  As aforementioned, it is possible that future generations will be heavily burdened with a plethora of cryonic patients who will need financial, medical, and social assistance if they ever become resuscitated and bound to live in a new society.

Possible Actions – Choice 1

In essence, the court has two decisions: it can either rule in favor of Donaldson and allow him to be assisted by Mondragon in cryonic suspension, or it can uphold existing statutes and prohibit any form of assisted suicide.  If the court indeed rules in favor of Donaldson, it must also grant all of the various injunctive reliefs which he sought since all of them go hand-in-hand.  The consequences could be far-reaching.  On the up-side, Donaldson would obviously be able to undergo an unconventional “life-extension” medical procedure, akin to a life-support system if resuscitation ever became possible.  Also, the sooner the court grants Donaldson the right, the better are his chances for survival after the suspension since the cancer would have less time to harm him.

Besides fulfilling his wishes, the court would also uphold the importance of individual rights by giving people such as Mondragon and cryonic specialists the freedom to assist Donaldson through the process since this process could not be done alone.  On the other hand, giving Donaldson the freedom to have an assisted “suicide” will allow other individuals under the same predicament to do the same.  Such a scenario might be unacceptable for those who want the government to discourage and not encourage the practice of cryonic suspension, which is still considered a form of suicide. 

How will this fair with the common good?  It might not fair well at all, for though it may advance personal desires, it does not necessarily promote any personal or social values or virtues since it only benefits one individual at the cost of resources, manpower, research, and wealth.  For instance, if we consider the fact of how expensive cryonic suspension is, the procedure is likely to benefit only the wealthy.  Viewed as such, the only virtue obtained by choosing cryonics is the virtue of survival.  Moreover, cryonic companies are likely to embrace such a decision because, besides economic gain, they will inevitably claim that they deeply value the rights of their patients to freely choose their own fates.

Possible Actions – Choice 2

If the court decides to rule against Donaldson by denying that he has a constitutional right to premortem cryogenic suspension as well as rejecting his requests for injunctive reliefs, then the consequences would be as follows.  Donaldson would not be allowed to go through with cryonic suspension, and even if he did, by law his body would have to be autopsied by a coroner because he did not obtain an injunctive relief against such legal action, and this would have defeated any chance he might have had for resuscitation.  However, because resuscitation from cryonic freezing does not exist yet anyway, Donaldson would in effect be living a few years longer (unless he chose to commit suicide in a more conventional way) albeit the fact that he would be in pain from the lesion in his brain.  Premortem cryonic suspension would therefore be prohibited by law so that no terminally-ill patients could attempt the procedure.

Such a ruling would thus be counter-productive to individual rights but would still guarantee Donaldson the right to take his own life, just not through cryonic suspension since it would involve that other individuals such as Mondragon and parties would be involved in the assistance of his suicide.  Furthermore, Mondragon even argues that his constitutional right to free expression would be violated if California’s assisted suicide statute prohibiting him from counseling and advising Donaldson was upheld.

Perhaps such downsides may be offset by the fact that, in general, common good interests are upheld in such a ruling since people are encouraged to live and not to die per se.  Also, the court would be guarding against potential abuses which could result from assisted suicides as evidenced by the following statement made by the state attorney general: “Third parties, even family members, do not always act to protect the person whose life will end.”  In terms of social values, the ruling seems to uphold the notion that much as we should value life, perhaps even death can be appreciated for the change in population, cultures, and diversity which it can bring.  An unchanging population which could result from widespread cryonic suspension and resuscitation, after all, is likely to continue upholding the same beliefs, ideas, and prejudices, in effect stunting the development of the human race.  In terms of personal virtues, the realization that we only have the present to live in and enact change seems to galvanize individuals to accomplish more in their lifetimes than if they had centuries to live.

Actual Final Decision Made in the Case of  DONALDSON VS. VAN DE KAMP

 “Held: A person with an incurable brain disease, which will result in a persistent vegetative state and ultimately death, does not have a constitutional right to either premortem cryogenic suspension or a state-assisted suicide, nor does a third person have a constitutional right to aid, advise, or encourage such a suicide.”