[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like we'll need a definition of 'alive'. Here's the problem in using it the way it seems you are suggesting. If a body is capable of being revived, is the person actually dead? Are the people who have had their bodies but into deep freeze also alive, if there is any chance that some time in the future they could be reactivated? If they are, do the people who have power of attorney for them have to be recognized as acting for a person with full legal rights?

If my question is unclear I'll try and rephrase it, just let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your question is clear. If a person is capable of being revived, then he is not dead. That there are a number of confusions possible in particular cases as to whether or not a person is, in fact, dead, is testament only to the limitations in the evidence at hand in particular cases and our ability to interpret it. No evidence or hypothetical difficulties can establish that there isn't in reality contrariety between death and life and that one isn't, in fact, exclusively one or the other.

As to the particular case you suggest, I will admit that it is a difficult one. Precisely because we don't know with absolute certainty if it is possible to revive an adult person who has been frozen, I would say that it is not possible to state with absolute certainty that he is dead. However, I would say that as a matter of moral or practical certainty, such a person is probably dead--as yet, there is no evidence that revival of such a person is possible. That is, the freezing process has probably killed them. As to what the law should be in their cases? I'm not sure. Given what we know, it does not seem that it would be in itself unlawful to unfreeze such a person and bury him.

In the case of the embryo, it is clear that life remains while the embryo is frozen, since the freezing only suspends and/or delays the developmental process. The embryo is revived after being unfrozen. The question of whether a frozen adult human is alive depends on whether or not similar revival is possible. Certainly in the latter case it is no where near as simple a process.

I will add a brief note about ethics and moral philosophy. According to Aristotle, one mark of a wise man is that he does not demand the same kind of certainty in practical matters as he does in a theoretical subject like mathematics. Thus, we act morally when we act according to all the available evidence in a situation and in accordance with moral principles that we judge to be true always or for the most part. So, one doesn't look to the most difficult and most perplexing ethical cases to craft one's definitions and principles. In ethics, one works from what is easier and more obvious (to formulate principles) to what is harder and less obvious (then applying the principles that apply always or for the most part to sort out the difficult cases).

Your question concerning frozen adult humans doesn't tell us much about the case of frozen embryos, because we already know more about the possibility of revival in the case of embryos than in the case of adults. As for what the law should be concerning frozen adults, I think I have given a fair answer that reflects what evidence we have.