Many years ago I watched a movie called 'Who's life is it anyway'. This introduced me to the idea of 'death with…
"when the patient is near their death many doctors/hoapitals release them in the care of the family with some management advice. However everyone knows that the patients are going home to die"
This sentence describes the essence of what palliative care medicine practices. Palliative care is for terminal patients who have decided no longer to pursue potential cures. (Usually, after exhausting options or concluding the treatment side effects ruin their quality of life with little chace of working.) Moving to palliative care signifies an acceptance of death's inevitability. The goal of medical treatment shifts from "cure" to "keep comfortable." Releasing them from the hospital now often means hospice care. That can be at home but there are now facilities that accept only hospice patients. (My dad....aww nevermind. But the staff there were great--both for him and for us family members.) The emergence of hospice care may not have reached rural Thailand yet, since the series did not use that terminology.
Still, most of what Dr Kan did was palliative care, including home visits (which is a hospice-like service). The script might have done more to emphasize that only a small fraction of his patients requested help dying. The script made it seem like Kan and Orn were a two-person wrecking crew, but it us far more likely neither of them broached the "final" option until after the patient brought up the topic first.
Thank you for reading my review! ❤️I made an effort to keep it as objective as possible and avoided spoilers,…
I get that struggle with wanting to be objective. I set out to be objective myself. I have written two statements on this series so far (the comment above was the earlier one) and upon reading back each one I was startled at how poorly concealed my views were. Then again, I live in one of only 10 U.S. states that has a Death With Dignity Act in place. And ours passed via voter referendum rather than via the legislature. My conscience wrestled with this ethical dilemma already, prior to that vote. Neutral, i cannot claim to be.
Fun fact: when this episode aired in December 2024, only 10 U.S. states allowed terminally-ill patients to ask their physician to help end their life. In the other 40, Dr. Kan's palliative-care colleagues would be at risk of arrest if they soothed their patient's final moments in the same manner. The specific questions about patient rights raised by this series concern not just Thailand's legal system, but are kind of universal.
I wish the subtitles had used the phrase "death with dignity" at least once, since it seems as if the series low-key advocates for reforming Thailand's laws to recognize this expansion to a patient's right to control their own body. Right to the end, if need be. The confrontation(s) between Pharmacist and Doctor in e 7 did an outstanding job distinguishing angel of death mercy killings (no consent = murder) from death with dignity (consent = not murder). Thai law recognizes no such distinction, however; so, their debate has no bearing on criminality.
"police officer is introduced to confront the reality of mercy killings and whether or not they can be justified"
What the pharmacist did was mercy killings (no consent). What Dr Kan performed was death with dignity (consent). In their ep 7 showdown, pharmacist believed their actions were morally the same, a position doctor flat out rejected. Thai law deems all euthanasia illegal, so their debate about the ethics of consent has no bearing on criminality.
The nuance between a mercy killing as euthanasia and death with dignity as euthanasia matters. As Dr Kan points out, death with dignity respects a human being's rights to control their own body and to direct their own medical choices. That is why some jurisdictions have recognized a patient's right to terminate their own life if they meet specific eligibility conditions (such as terminal illness). The subtitle consistently used the word "euthanasia," so I imagine the new-fangled phraseology "death with dignity" has yet to make inroads in Thai culture. [Or the subtitleist is unfamiliar with the variant.] I wish the script had done more (and sooner than e 7-8) to explore the fuzzy line between the two variants of "mercy," especially given the murky legality of Kan's actions.
Your review was quite excellent. But I wish that sentence I quoted captured a bit of that moral distinction. "...police officer drawn into a murder investigation must confront the ethical boundaries between an angel of death killer and a palliative-care physician seeing out his patients' requests to let them slip peacefully away. Can either form of euthanasia be justified?"
What's the song's tittle that the professor of Kan used to listen ?
It is an 1893 tune called Daisy Bell. Its the "bicycle built for two" song. In ep 8, a Thai title was mentioned that had a whole other phrase, so the Thai lyrics may not be a literal translation of the 19th C English lyrics.
The Thai recording also sounded old (would have already been old when the late professor was a child.) If anyone knows about that specific Thai recording, I'd like to know more about that.
Normally, I have mixed reactions to Eliot's reviews. Agree with parts; disagree with parts. And that's perfectly normal since two people should have different takes on the same material. But no need for me to review this series. This review sums up my thoughts nicely. Spot on.
Can it really be labeled a spin-off if the company uploads the "first" episode to YouTube branded as episode 9 of 12? In other words, does the company just view this addendum as a continuation?
Hello. Even an "error" in a publication in a printed medium could be solved, in other editions, if the author…
I didnt suggest there was insufficient praise. I suggested that part of the review stood up despite the misdirection of the synopsis. The synopsis itself promotes the hooey (a thousand lives) that your review pontificated on.
Writing reviews before a series concludes is a risky proposition. Especially if you misplace trust in the accuracy of a synopsis. One which, in this case, may have been intended as a red herring. A deliberate misdirect to viewers with all the hooey about destiny across a thousand lives. The portions of the review assessing writing, directing, and acting retain their validity. (I would also praise those artists.) But episodes 6-7 destroy the assessment of the plot offered here. I'd make judicious use of the edit button. After the Finale.
- It makes sense but that means you have to pay attention to details...- Of course, the ring has a meaning but…
--Because they mentioned Thanos. The characters themselves literally compared the ring to Thanos's gauntlet as an explanation for why Boss was powerful.
--I didn't say a word of criticism about the staging of fight scenes. Or their inclusion.
--When a series is not centered around the romance, all the more reason to pay attention to the logic of the rest of the story. If you write a crime action tale and you need a powerful villain, do better than "Boss steals a ring and, suddenly, all the other villains who used to mock him are now afraid of him" as justification.
--this particular series has four credited screenwriters, but making the "writer" a chorus didn't work. I opted for "her" at the end only because in this industry female screenwriters outnumber men. In the moment, I was more concerned with the default linguistic tendency to erase women's contributions by resorting to male pronouns. Does that alone qualify as misogyny? Or does leaping to the very serious accusation of misogyny make you a man-hater, absent any other evidence?
--the "fan" comments summarize different elements anyone can persistently find sifting through the comments section of any BL series. Fan 1 is based on me, in fact. I did not invent these ways of thinking, nor do I object to the fans finding what they want. But I do think if we do not demand better quality from production companies, we certainly won't get it.
--having a different sensibility than you do regarding continuity, story logic, plot editing, or character development is not a sign of bad faith.
Director: I am not comfortable shooting this. I mean aside from the central romance and Joke's family issues, none of it makes sense.
Writer: Hush, you peon. Television is a writer's medium. You'll shoot the script as written. And tell those actors to make it believable when they talk about the ring! If the characters all act as if a ring bestows magic powers and invulnerability, the audience will just accept it.
Director: but this isn't a comic book universe or a make-believe world. There are no magic rings. The audience will see through it.
Writer: You forget, peon. This is a BL audience. As long as pretty boys flirt and kiss, logic doesn't matter. If everyone behaves as if a hunk of jewelry has power, it becomes true.
BL Fan 1: how dare you think so little of us! Of course, story matters! Of course, plausible character arcs meticulously crafted over several episodes matter! You can't just dump some previously unmentioned ring into the middle combined with some weird game and expect us to just forg--hey! Are those guys kissing? Wow! Look at them go at it!
BL Fan 2: Gosh! These actors have such chemistry! I'd watch anything to see chemistry like this! That isn't highly trained and well-rehearsed professional actors putting on a performance! That's real!
BL Fan 3: I just loved them in their last series! So good! I am just so happy to see them together, I dont even need a plot.
Director: [chastened] I will never question you again!
Writer: Wise, peon. Very wise. [Laughs maniacally as she twists an ostentatious, possibly magic, ring around her finger.]
Director: I am not comfortable shooting this. I mean aside from the central romance and Joke's family issues, none of it makes sense.
Writer: Hush, you peon. Television is a writer's medium. You'll shoot the script as written. And tell those actors to make it believable when they talk about the ring! If the characters all act as if a ring bestows magic powers and invulnerability, the audience will just accept it.
Director: but this isn't a comic book universe or a make-believe world. There are no magic rings. The audience will see through it.
Writer: You forget, peon. This is a BL audience. As long as pretty boys flirt and kiss, logic doesn't matter. If everyone behaves as if a hunk of jewelry has power, it becomes true.
BL Fan 1: how dare you think so little of us! Of course, story matters! Of course, plausible character arcs meticulously crafted over several episodes matter! You can't just dump some previously unmentioned ring into the middle combined with some weird game and expect us to just forg--hey! Are those guys kissing? Wow! Look at them go at it!
BL Fan 2: Gosh! These actors have such chemistry! I'd watch anything to see chemistry like this! That isn't highly trained and well-rehearsed professional actors putting on a performance! That's real!
BL Fan 3: I just loved them in their last series! So good! I am just so happy to see them together, I dont even need a plot.
Director: [chastened] I will never question you again!
Writer: Wise, peon. Very wise. [Laughs maniacally as she twists an ostentatious, possibly magic, ring around her finger.]
In my theory of criticism, certain episodes of a limited series have particular jobs to do that other episodes do not. For example, Premiere episodes must introduce the characters and establish the situation. It is not always necessary to set the plot in motion, but the debut must do the set up for the main story. Similarly, penultimate and finale episodes have jobs that differentiate them from most other episodes. It is therefore possible to judge such episodes differently than the rest of a series.
In my opinion, Wandee Goodday delivers one of the most effective premiere episodes. It is noteworthy enough to warrant this addendum to a review that encapsulates the flaws and sins of the whole. Nevertheless, aspiring scriptwriters should study this episode as a textbook example of how to establish characters and set up a premise.
Unfortunately, the series progresses downhill from there. It may be a textbook story on what not to do after that. What a colossal waste.
3 
This sentence describes the essence of what palliative care medicine practices. Palliative care is for terminal patients who have decided no longer to pursue potential cures. (Usually, after exhausting options or concluding the treatment side effects ruin their quality of life with little chace of working.) Moving to palliative care signifies an acceptance of death's inevitability. The goal of medical treatment shifts from "cure" to "keep comfortable." Releasing them from the hospital now often means hospice care. That can be at home but there are now facilities that accept only hospice patients. (My dad....aww nevermind. But the staff there were great--both for him and for us family members.) The emergence of hospice care may not have reached rural Thailand yet, since the series did not use that terminology.
Still, most of what Dr Kan did was palliative care, including home visits (which is a hospice-like service). The script might have done more to emphasize that only a small fraction of his patients requested help dying. The script made it seem like Kan and Orn were a two-person wrecking crew, but it us far more likely neither of them broached the "final" option until after the patient brought up the topic first.
I wish the subtitles had used the phrase "death with dignity" at least once, since it seems as if the series low-key advocates for reforming Thailand's laws to recognize this expansion to a patient's right to control their own body. Right to the end, if need be. The confrontation(s) between Pharmacist and Doctor in e 7 did an outstanding job distinguishing angel of death mercy killings (no consent = murder) from death with dignity (consent = not murder). Thai law recognizes no such distinction, however; so, their debate has no bearing on criminality.
What the pharmacist did was mercy killings (no consent). What Dr Kan performed was death with dignity (consent). In their ep 7 showdown, pharmacist believed their actions were morally the same, a position doctor flat out rejected. Thai law deems all euthanasia illegal, so their debate about the ethics of consent has no bearing on criminality.
The nuance between a mercy killing as euthanasia and death with dignity as euthanasia matters. As Dr Kan points out, death with dignity respects a human being's rights to control their own body and to direct their own medical choices. That is why some jurisdictions have recognized a patient's right to terminate their own life if they meet specific eligibility conditions (such as terminal illness). The subtitle consistently used the word "euthanasia," so I imagine the new-fangled phraseology "death with dignity" has yet to make inroads in Thai culture. [Or the subtitleist is unfamiliar with the variant.] I wish the script had done more (and sooner than e 7-8) to explore the fuzzy line between the two variants of "mercy," especially given the murky legality of Kan's actions.
Your review was quite excellent. But I wish that sentence I quoted captured a bit of that moral distinction. "...police officer drawn into a murder investigation must confront the ethical boundaries between an angel of death killer and a palliative-care physician seeing out his patients' requests to let them slip peacefully away. Can either form of euthanasia be justified?"
The Thai recording also sounded old (would have already been old when the late professor was a child.) If anyone knows about that specific Thai recording, I'd like to know more about that.
--I didn't say a word of criticism about the staging of fight scenes. Or their inclusion.
--When a series is not centered around the romance, all the more reason to pay attention to the logic of the rest of the story. If you write a crime action tale and you need a powerful villain, do better than "Boss steals a ring and, suddenly, all the other villains who used to mock him are now afraid of him" as justification.
--this particular series has four credited screenwriters, but making the "writer" a chorus didn't work. I opted for "her" at the end only because in this industry female screenwriters outnumber men. In the moment, I was more concerned with the default linguistic tendency to erase women's contributions by resorting to male pronouns. Does that alone qualify as misogyny? Or does leaping to the very serious accusation of misogyny make you a man-hater, absent any other evidence?
--the "fan" comments summarize different elements anyone can persistently find sifting through the comments section of any BL series. Fan 1 is based on me, in fact. I did not invent these ways of thinking, nor do I object to the fans finding what they want. But I do think if we do not demand better quality from production companies, we certainly won't get it.
--having a different sensibility than you do regarding continuity, story logic, plot editing, or character development is not a sign of bad faith.
Writer: Hush, you peon. Television is a writer's medium. You'll shoot the script as written. And tell those actors to make it believable when they talk about the ring! If the characters all act as if a ring bestows magic powers and invulnerability, the audience will just accept it.
Director: but this isn't a comic book universe or a make-believe world. There are no magic rings. The audience will see through it.
Writer: You forget, peon. This is a BL audience. As long as pretty boys flirt and kiss, logic doesn't matter. If everyone behaves as if a hunk of jewelry has power, it becomes true.
BL Fan 1: how dare you think so little of us! Of course, story matters! Of course, plausible character arcs meticulously crafted over several episodes matter! You can't just dump some previously unmentioned ring into the middle combined with some weird game and expect us to just forg--hey! Are those guys kissing? Wow! Look at them go at it!
BL Fan 2: Gosh! These actors have such chemistry! I'd watch anything to see chemistry like this! That isn't highly trained and well-rehearsed professional actors putting on a performance! That's real!
BL Fan 3: I just loved them in their last series! So good! I am just so happy to see them together, I dont even need a plot.
Director: [chastened] I will never question you again!
Writer: Wise, peon. Very wise. [Laughs maniacally as she twists an ostentatious, possibly magic, ring around her finger.]
THE END
Writer: Hush, you peon. Television is a writer's medium. You'll shoot the script as written. And tell those actors to make it believable when they talk about the ring! If the characters all act as if a ring bestows magic powers and invulnerability, the audience will just accept it.
Director: but this isn't a comic book universe or a make-believe world. There are no magic rings. The audience will see through it.
Writer: You forget, peon. This is a BL audience. As long as pretty boys flirt and kiss, logic doesn't matter. If everyone behaves as if a hunk of jewelry has power, it becomes true.
BL Fan 1: how dare you think so little of us! Of course, story matters! Of course, plausible character arcs meticulously crafted over several episodes matter! You can't just dump some previously unmentioned ring into the middle combined with some weird game and expect us to just forg--hey! Are those guys kissing? Wow! Look at them go at it!
BL Fan 2: Gosh! These actors have such chemistry! I'd watch anything to see chemistry like this! That isn't highly trained and well-rehearsed professional actors putting on a performance! That's real!
BL Fan 3: I just loved them in their last series! So good! I am just so happy to see them together, I dont even need a plot.
Director: [chastened] I will never question you again!
Writer: Wise, peon. Very wise. [Laughs maniacally as she twists an ostentatious, possibly magic, ring around her finger.]
THE END
In my opinion, Wandee Goodday delivers one of the most effective premiere episodes. It is noteworthy enough to warrant this addendum to a review that encapsulates the flaws and sins of the whole. Nevertheless, aspiring scriptwriters should study this episode as a textbook example of how to establish characters and set up a premise.
Unfortunately, the series progresses downhill from there. It may be a textbook story on what not to do after that. What a colossal waste.