Maaaannnn for me this is magical...It has one too many flaws and it ain't no where perfect in terms of acting, technical aspects...but man the Sun and Junior got to be one of the most loveliest characters in Thai BL. Ben and Jay chemistry is like top of the mountain...hope they get some good series as they progress in their career...really looking forward to their next project....
so she died without standing a trial...what a bummer!!!
All signals pointing towards him....it would be super weird if they make someone else the mastermind, it has to be him so it makes sense...otherwise it is too bad of a story...
Also he said to FL he needs to go abroad for work...it is pretty obvious...
Nothing is more repulsive and atrciously self-righteous than finishing sentences with ‘period’ and ‘no discussion…
I understand that strong statements can be perceived as final, but my intent wasn’t to shut down conversation—rather, to emphasize the depth of my conviction on a deeply personal issue. While I value open discussion, there are certain values and principles that, for me, are non-negotiable. I’m always open to a respectful exchange of ideas, but sometimes, clarity and firmness are necessary to express just how strongly I feel. Let’s continue to engage with respect, as the diversity of perspectives only strengthens the conversation.
Here’s what I think, and I stand by it. Believe me, I’ve personally experienced watching someone I deeply loved suffer in pain. Yet, no matter how difficult it was, life has to run its course. In the series, it’s portrayed beautifully, almost dreamlike, with characters calmly asking for death to be granted to them. But in reality, it’s far from pretty.
How can people talk about pain and death so casually? Does it really seem that simple to you? Does it seem so easy that someone on their deathbed can make such a request, and it’s granted just like that? The truth is much messier, more complicated, and filled with emotions that can’t be wrapped up so neatly.
People here often grant their empathy and emotions more power than the actual crime committed. Perhaps it’s a morally challenging subject, but one thing is very clear: hiding the truth is a crime, regardless of its weight—whether big or small. When you choose to speak the truth, there’s no need to hide, no matter how dire the consequences, even if it means facing death. Truth carries a power that transcends fear, and in embracing it, we find clarity and integrity.
But Dr. Kan believed firmly in his own principles. However, living through pain oneself doesn’t automatically grant the right to impose what you feel is right on others or to justify actions solely based on personal experience. Enduring hardship may shape our perspectives, but it doesn’t make them universally correct or give us the authority to act as we please. Pain is deeply personal, but morality and ethics require a broader lens that considers others' rights, choices, and the larger implications of our actions.
Even when others willingly surrender their rights and transfer that power to you, it still doesn’t make you an executioner. You are not greater than life, nor are you larger than death. The sanctity of life and the gravity of death demand humility and restraint, not the assumption of a role that belongs beyond human authority.
Euthanasia, regardless of how noble the intentions may seem, is fundamentally flawed and ethically indefensible. Dr. Kan’s actions underscore the complexity of this issue—despite his good intentions, his decisions were riddled with moral ambiguity and consequences that could not be undone. Legalizing euthanasia opens the door to a host of dangerous implications. It sends a message that life’s value can be measured by its perceived quality, which risks dehumanizing those who are vulnerable or dependent. The mere existence of a legal option for euthanasia could pressure individuals—whether explicitly or implicitly—into ending their lives to spare their families or society from perceived burdens. This is not compassion; it is coercion cloaked in good intentions.
Furthermore, even the best safeguards cannot eliminate the potential for abuse or error. Human judgment is fallible, and a system allowing euthanasia would inevitably be manipulated by individuals with selfish motives or by societal biases against those seen as "unproductive." Trust in the medical profession, already fragile in many societies, would be irreparably damaged. How can patients fully trust doctors if they know that ending life is an officially sanctioned option? Medicine must remain steadfast in its commitment to heal, alleviate suffering, and preserve dignity without crossing the moral line of taking life.
Pain and suffering, though deeply tragic, can be addressed through advances in palliative care and psychological support. Choosing euthanasia over such solutions diminishes society's commitment to finding humane ways to manage end-of-life challenges. Good intentions cannot sanitize the act of euthanasia; taking a life—regardless of the reasoning—is inherently wrong.
Euthanasia, no matter how well-intentioned, crosses an irreversible moral line that diminishes the sanctity of life and the trust in humanity's compassion. As Albert Schweitzer profoundly said, 'The purpose of human life is to serve, and to show compassion and the will to help others.' Ending life under the guise of mercy forsakes this purpose and weakens the moral fabric of society."
I understand and respect the arguments of those who say "yes" to euthanasia, but my stance remains firm: life, in all its complexities and vulnerabilities, is worth protecting. Standing by this belief is not an act of defiance, but a commitment to preserving the dignity and value of every human being.
I wrote long para, but then deleted, no need. What Kan did was wrong. Period. There is no discussion needed. The whole thing is ambiguous, and the ending was expected.
It is a good series, may be not the best, but it did it job.
sometimes lesser known cast do wonders, they added all the start cast after the success..hope it is a maker, otherwise if they leave too much cliffhanger for season 3, then it will be a bummer, a good cliffhanger doesn't mean you need to make an ending incomplete it can be complete but more is needed so wait is bearable...
I think SML is the psycho killer who is obsessed over the FL and he is the one who is trying to breakup the main…
that’s our guess…but in novel he doesn’t have any role very minor character so they changed that…but yes this is the only possibility left and they won’t make a new character for the sake of culprit…we guessers it way earlier…it is him…as in novel he doesn’t have any appearance but in series he is like SMl so they created this mystery of him…
They keep making appearances in these BLs, when on earth they will get their own BL again, after making the whole BL world heart broken they make these 1 sec cameo and bring back our dire urge to see them again...please come back soon and give us BL with happy ending....
4 
1 
2 
1 
1 
EP 61-70: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9afax2
EP 71-81: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9aj6kk
All signals pointing towards him....it would be super weird if they make someone else the mastermind, it has to be him so it makes sense...otherwise it is too bad of a story...
Also he said to FL he needs to go abroad for work...it is pretty obvious...
How can people talk about pain and death so casually? Does it really seem that simple to you? Does it seem so easy that someone on their deathbed can make such a request, and it’s granted just like that? The truth is much messier, more complicated, and filled with emotions that can’t be wrapped up so neatly.
People here often grant their empathy and emotions more power than the actual crime committed. Perhaps it’s a morally challenging subject, but one thing is very clear: hiding the truth is a crime, regardless of its weight—whether big or small. When you choose to speak the truth, there’s no need to hide, no matter how dire the consequences, even if it means facing death. Truth carries a power that transcends fear, and in embracing it, we find clarity and integrity.
But Dr. Kan believed firmly in his own principles. However, living through pain oneself doesn’t automatically grant the right to impose what you feel is right on others or to justify actions solely based on personal experience. Enduring hardship may shape our perspectives, but it doesn’t make them universally correct or give us the authority to act as we please. Pain is deeply personal, but morality and ethics require a broader lens that considers others' rights, choices, and the larger implications of our actions.
Even when others willingly surrender their rights and transfer that power to you, it still doesn’t make you an executioner. You are not greater than life, nor are you larger than death. The sanctity of life and the gravity of death demand humility and restraint, not the assumption of a role that belongs beyond human authority.
Euthanasia, regardless of how noble the intentions may seem, is fundamentally flawed and ethically indefensible. Dr. Kan’s actions underscore the complexity of this issue—despite his good intentions, his decisions were riddled with moral ambiguity and consequences that could not be undone. Legalizing euthanasia opens the door to a host of dangerous implications. It sends a message that life’s value can be measured by its perceived quality, which risks dehumanizing those who are vulnerable or dependent. The mere existence of a legal option for euthanasia could pressure individuals—whether explicitly or implicitly—into ending their lives to spare their families or society from perceived burdens. This is not compassion; it is coercion cloaked in good intentions.
Furthermore, even the best safeguards cannot eliminate the potential for abuse or error. Human judgment is fallible, and a system allowing euthanasia would inevitably be manipulated by individuals with selfish motives or by societal biases against those seen as "unproductive." Trust in the medical profession, already fragile in many societies, would be irreparably damaged. How can patients fully trust doctors if they know that ending life is an officially sanctioned option? Medicine must remain steadfast in its commitment to heal, alleviate suffering, and preserve dignity without crossing the moral line of taking life.
Pain and suffering, though deeply tragic, can be addressed through advances in palliative care and psychological support. Choosing euthanasia over such solutions diminishes society's commitment to finding humane ways to manage end-of-life challenges. Good intentions cannot sanitize the act of euthanasia; taking a life—regardless of the reasoning—is inherently wrong.
Euthanasia, no matter how well-intentioned, crosses an irreversible moral line that diminishes the sanctity of life and the trust in humanity's compassion. As Albert Schweitzer profoundly said, 'The purpose of human life is to serve, and to show compassion and the will to help others.' Ending life under the guise of mercy forsakes this purpose and weakens the moral fabric of society."
I understand and respect the arguments of those who say "yes" to euthanasia, but my stance remains firm: life, in all its complexities and vulnerabilities, is worth protecting. Standing by this belief is not an act of defiance, but a commitment to preserving the dignity and value of every human being.
It is a good series, may be not the best, but it did it job.