In 1989, Thomas Donaldson requested the California courts to allow physicians to hasten his death. Donaldson had been diagnosed with brain cancer, and he desired to die in order to cryonically preserve his brain, so as to stop its further deterioration. This case elicits an important question: is this a case of euthanasia? In this article, we examine the traditional criteria of death, and contrast it with the information-theoretic criterion. If this criterion is accepted, we posit that Donaldson's case would have been cryocide, but not euthanasia. We then examine if cryocide is an ethically feasible alternative to euthanasia. To do so, we rely on the ethical doctrine of double effect.

中文翻译：

---

人体冷冻学、安乐死和双重效应学说。

1989年，托马斯·唐纳森请求加州法院允许医生加速他的死亡。唐纳森被诊断出患有脑癌，他希望以死来冷冻保存他的大脑，从而阻止其进一步恶化。这个案例引出了一个重要的问题：这是一个安乐死案例吗？在本文中，我们研究了传统的死亡标准，并将其与信息论标准进行了对比。如果这个标准被接受，我们认为唐纳森的案件将是冷冻死亡，而不是安乐死。然后我们检查冷冻疗法是否是安乐死的伦理上可行的替代方案。为此，我们依靠双重效应的伦理学说。