Editing Cryonics (section)

==Ethics==
Writing in ''[[Bioethics (journal)|Bioethics]]'' in 2009, David Shaw examined cryonics. The arguments he cited against it included changing the concept of death, the expense of preservation and revival, lack of scientific advancement to permit revival, temptation to use premature euthanasia, and failure due to catastrophe. Arguments in favor of cryonics include the potential benefit to society, the prospect of immortality, and the benefits associated with avoiding death. Shaw explores the expense and the potential payoff, and applies an adapted version of [[Pascal's Wager]] to the question.<ref name="shaw cryoethics">Shaw, David. "Cryoethics: seeking life after death", ''[[Bioethics (journal)|Bioethics]]'' 23.9 (2009): 515–521. APA</ref> He argues that someone who bets on cryonic preservation risks losing "a bit of money" but potentially gains a longer life and perhaps immortality. Shaun Pattinson responds that Shaw's calculation is incomplete because "being revived only equates to winning the wager if the revived life is worth living. A longer life of unremitting suffering, perhaps due to irreparable nerve damage or even the actions of an evil reviver, is unlikely to be considered preferable to non-revival".<ref name="Pattinson, LFBM">{{Cite book |last=Pattinson |first=Shaun D. |title=Law at the frontiers of biomedicine: creating, enhancing and extending human life |date=2023 |publisher=Hart |isbn=978-1-5099-4107-0 |location=Oxford}}</ref> 

In 2016, Charles Tandy wrote in support of cryonics, arguing that honoring someone's [[will and testament|last wishes]] is seen as a benevolent duty in American and many other cultures.<ref>{{cite SSRN|title=An Open Letter to Physicians in Death-with-Dignity States (The Case of a Terminally Ill Cryonicist)|last=Tandy|first=Charles|date=8 February 2017|ssrn=2913107}}</ref>