Abstract
Importance Terminally ill patients sometimes inquire about preservation procedures (e.g. cryopreservation, aldehyde-based fixation) as end-of-life treatment options, yet physician perspectives on feasibility and ethical acceptability remain uncharacterized.
Objective To assess US physicians’ estimates of preservation feasibility, views on interventions to improve outcomes, and positions on ethical and legal frameworks.
Design Cross-sectional survey conducted October 2025.
Setting Sermo, an online platform for verified US healthcare professionals.
Participants Convenience sample of 334 physicians comprising 150 primary care physicians (general practice, internal medicine, family medicine) and 184 other specialists.
Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated probability that preservation retains neurally-encoded information sufficient for future revival; support for pre-mortem anticoagulation and pre-cardiac arrest procedure initiation; views on compatibility with patient-centered care.
Results Among 334 physicians, the median estimated probability that preservation under ideal conditions could retain sufficient neural information for future revival was 25.5%.
Overall, 27.9% found preservation somewhat or very plausible for enabling future revival; 47.0% found it somewhat or very implausible. Most physicians (70.7%) supported prescribing anticoagulants to terminal patients to improve preservation quality; 11.7% opposed. For patients choosing preservation in combination with medical assistance in dying, 44.3% supported initiating preservation prior to cardiac arrest; 28.8% opposed. Most (58.1%) agreed preservation could be consistent with compassionate care (20.1% disagreed), and 49.1% reported comfort with patients choosing preservation (30.0% uncomfortable). Familiarity with preservation correlated with higher probability estimates (ρ = 0.26; p < 10-3), while end-of-life discussion frequency correlated with support for pre-cardiac arrest procedures (ρ = 0.18; p = 0.003).
Conclusions and Relevance US physicians assigned a median 25.5% probability to preservation retaining neural information under ideal conditions in a manner potentially compatible with future patient revival. The majority support for pre-mortem anticoagulation and substantial support for pre-cardiac arrest initiation indicate that many physicians would consider accommodating patient requests for preservation-enhancing interventions. These findings may inform development of clinical guidelines, though the speculative nature of the estimates warrants consideration.
Question How do US physicians estimate the feasibility of preserving terminally ill patients for potential future revival, and what interventions would they support to improve outcomes?
Findings In this cross-sectional survey of 334 physicians, the median estimated probability that preservation could retain neural information sufficient for future revival was 25.5%; 70.7% supported prescribing anticoagulants to improve preservation quality, and 44.3% supported initiating preservation prior to cardiac arrest for patients choosing medical assistance in dying.
Meaning Non-trivial physician support for preservation’s feasibility and acceptability suggests a need to develop guidelines addressing preservation as an end-of-life option.
Competing Interest Statement
Andrew McKenzie is an employee of Sparks Brain Preservation, a non-profit brain preservation organization, and a director of Apex Neuroscience, a non-profit research organization. Emil Kendziorra is a shareholder and CEO of Tomorrow Bio, a biostasis provider, President of the Board of the European Biostasis Foundation, a non-profit research foundation, a shareholder and director at Oxford Cryotechnology, Inc., a cryopreservation research organization, and a board member at CryoDAO, a Swiss research association.
Funding Statement
Research funding for this study was supported by a CryoDAO grant (2025.1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Pearl Institutional Review Board of Pearl IRB waived ethical approval for this work (#2025-0579). Specifically, the survey and its implementation were reviewed by the Pearl Institutional Review Board and received an exemption determination (#2025-0579)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes