SA-- C81-- KEY POINTS [Maxim]

Maxim introduces several key points about C81 in her blog Cryonics meets Medicine-- [+]

KEY POINT: There is a contradiction in SA’s claims that the family wanted to carry out their father’s wishes, when it was well known that the patient did not want SA’s services.

KEY POINT: The friends and family members being present should not have dictated that the discontinuation of life support be prompt, unless they were hostile, but SA states that "no hostile family members were known to exist" on page 6 of their report.

KEY QUESTION: Did CI-81 have a wife or other children? If so, what are their opinions of this case?

KEY POINT: Even an "official" SA client would have received the same, unqualified, inexperienced team members.

KEY POINT: SA has been negligent in building and maintaining an adequate, qualified standby team.

KEY POINT: Not bringing the Thumper was a critical mistake made by Charles Platt and Kelly Kingston.
KEY QUESTION: Are SA personnel even BLS certified? If not, why not?

EXTREMELY CRITICAL:

Two minutes later he exclaimed in surprise as he made an incision and found blood spurting onto him under pressure from the cannula that was already attached to the ATP on the arterial side. He was heard to ask if the ATP pump was running. The Third Team Member confirmed that it was.

This is critical. Anyone who is familiar with the cannulation process and perfusion will come to the same conclusions I have, after reading this. We know the femoral artery has already been cannulated, as per the SA report, (with a small venous cannula, in error). The next incision to be made is one into the femoral vein. Blood does not "spurt" from a venous incision of a "legally dead" patient. The SA report clearly states that the femoral artery had been cannulated and that the spurting of blood was a result of "pressure from the cannula that was already attached to the ATP on the arterial side." The report also states that Ken Schroeder confirmed that the pump was running.

This patient was subjected to high pressures by the improper use of the perfusion equipment by incompetent personnel. In order to reach the femoral vein, that pressure had to travel through the entire circulation of the patient, and therefore, was applied to every organ in the patient's body, including his brain.

This is a patient who has already suffered one stroke, prior to legal death, putting him at extremely high risk of additional strokes, especially if subjected to increased vascular pressure. People who have strokes often have generalized vascular disease, meaning their entire vascular system is compromised. How much damage did SA, through their arrogance and incompetence, do to CI-81's brain and other organs?

THIS IS A PUBLIC REQUEST FOR SA TO REMOVE ANY AND ALL MENTION OF ME FROM THEIR CASE REPORT AND TO CORRECT THE REASON GIVEN FOR MY RESIGNATION IN THEIR NEWS BULLETIN. I DID NOT RESIGN MY POSITION AT SA, TO RETURN TO WORKING WITH MY HUSBAND; I QUIT BECAUSE I COULD NOT WORK WITH CHARLES PLATT, AND SAUL KENT SEEMED DETERMINED TO ALLOW PLATT TO MANAGE THE FACILITY, IN SPITE OF HIS "RESIGNATION."