I just saw the following at News.com.com.com.com.com:

U.S. scientists have apparently discovered a way to reanimate dogs that have been clinically dead for three hours, a process intended for future human trials.

A new scientific approach tested at the Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research, based in Pittsburgh, drains some of the animal's blood and replaces it with an ice-cold salt solution. The dog--considered technically dead without a heartbeat or brain waves--is then revived with a blood transfusion and electric shock up to three hours later. The process, called "suspended animation with delayed resuscitation," is ultimately designed to help suspend and revive emergency victims, such as casualties of war or car accidents, who have experienced an otherwise lethal hemorrhage.

(That's pretty much everything of interest in the article. It was really really really short. Sorry about the plagiarism.)

I found this to be rather interesting from the stance of someone looking for hope in cryonics. Sure, this is short term (~3 hours), but how long will it be before longer time periods are attempted?

My biggest concern here is how much of the memory and personality of the person (or animal) being reanimated changes over a given period of time. With that in mind, there are a few other rather pressing questions which should be taken into consideration at this point (or sometime soon):

1) Am I correct in presuming that unless otherwise indicated, should someone face a situation in which they have to undergo this procedure, should this therapy be available, that this method will be applied by default to the patient?

2) If the answer is yes, then the question becomes at what point do we give up and let the person die? Or do we simply keep the person de-animated perpetually, on the hopes that a "fix" will appear in the near future? What is society's moral obligation in this case? Is there a moral obligation to go either way?

3) How is this likely to affect legal decissions regarding assisted suicide in cases where a person has an as-yet incurable disease? I'm not talking about someone who's depresed and may be mentally unbalanced, but a person with, say, lung cancer which begins to spread to the brain? If that person chooses a form of assisted suicide in order to be given this treatment -- how would current laws apply to that person, and how, given this development, will those laws be affected?

4) If you were in that situation (being de/re-animated), but you knew that you would lose all memories and suffer brain damage as a result of the treatment, would you want to go through this yourself? (Wouldn't the avoidance of this be the very reason the person with brain cancer would want this done?) What moral obligation would society have to re-animate you, given that you would essentially be a burden upon your family/the state? Is the utilitarian argument of usefulness applicable here or does the intrinsic value of human life take precedent?

Your thoughts would be most appreciated.