News release

From: PLOS

Doctors believe preservation has a one in four chance of working, but not without challenges

Opinions ranged widely, with some physicians concerned that preparation for preservation could interfere with best practices for a patient’s care.

Surveyed US physicians believed preservation has a one in four chance of working, though opinions amongst physicians varied. Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnston of Monash University, Australia, and colleagues present their findings in the study, published on May 20, 2026 in the open-access journal PLOS One.

It’s unclear whether there is a consensus amongst doctors regarding preservation – the storing of bodies at extremely low temperatures, or using preservative chemicals, in the hopes of future revival. Preservation is not the only way in which physicians have to balance concerns about unproven treatments with patients’ preferences, but it is one with high stakes as it pertains to the end of someone’s life. The technologies necessary to revive someone have not yet been realized, though current preservation organizations report several hundred patients preserved globally, with thousands more signed up for future preservation.

In this study, Zeleznikow-Johnston and colleagues conducted a survey of over 300 physicians, nearly half of whom were primary care providers, the rest being various kinds of specialists including neurologists, intensive care doctors, anesthesiologists, and doctors who specialize in palliative care. The survey was designed to address three main themes: the perceived feasibility of preservation procedures, clinical interventions that could improve preservation outcomes, and the ethical and legal standing of preservation as an end-of-life option.

About one in four of the physicians said they believed it was plausible, or even very plausible, that someone could be revived in the future after preservation. Just under half said it was unlikely. Neurosurgeons, on average, rated the possibility of revival highest, though most of the other specialties showed a wide spread of opinions that slanted more towards skepticism.

The way doctors are most likely to interact with preservation in their professional capacity is in the choices a patient may make for end-of-life care. A majority of physicians supported prescribing anti-coagulants to dying patients, which could help with the quality of preservation. However, fewer respondents were comfortable with more extreme procedures, such as patients going through medically assisted death and opting to begin the preservation before cardiac arrest. The doctors who most commonly have conversations about end-of-life care were overall more supportive of this kind of choice. About one in five doctors were concerned that decisions to increase the odds of successful cryopreservation would clash with providing the best standards of care.

Currently, pre-cardiac arrest preservation in humans is, to the best of our knowledge, not legally permitted anywhere in the world, but if the technology develops further, may become an issue healthcare professionals must grapple with. The authors emphasize that clarifying the clinical, legal, and ethical frameworks for use of preservation as an end-of life procedure is important, and note that the speculative nature of the findings should be carefully considered.

Zeleznikow-Johnston adds: “A lot of physician hesitancy may come from simple unfamiliarity with the scientific basis of modern preservation methods. The doctors who have actually thought about this - and who regularly sit with dying patients - tend to be more receptive, not less.”