oh do tell me about your theories on how fadel might become a schemer too, though i hope as you he won't.i won't…
I feel like this scene was such a waste. I had hoped that Style would open up about his mother or something and that it would bring them closer emotionally but instead he made a mockery out of it (I haven't read the novel and I don't know about his mother but since she is not here I just assumed she was dead or left )
I am against euthanasia and the one giving, there is no such thing as "good death". Medical euthanasia, while…
I understand your concerns about euthanasia, especially regarding the ethical implications of healthcare providers being involved in ending a patient’s life. You are correct that the core principles of medicine often center on preserving life and alleviating suffering. However,I believe that, in certain circumstances, allowing patients the right to end their own suffering through euthanasia can be a compassionate and ethical option. Let me explain why. Medicine indeed traditionally aims to preserve life, but it is also about alleviating suffering and respecting patient autonomy. When a person experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated through conventional means, the role of the healthcare provider shifts from simply preserving life to managing pain and ensuring dignity. In cases where palliative care fails to address the full spectrum of suffering—especially psychological and existential pain—euthanasia can offer a compassionate alternative. For me, euthanasia, in this context, is not about taking life prematurely but about respecting the autonomy of the patient to decide how and when to end their suffering. Recent studies highlight that euthanasia is often considered by patients who feel their suffering has become unbearable and that their dignity can no longer be preserved through other means. I read a study (I believe it was made in 2023) which emphasized that euthanasia provides patients with a way to exercise control over their death when no other options remain, ensuring they can die in a manner that aligns with their values. This choice is seen as an expression of autonomy, allowing individuals to avoid prolonged suffering when their quality of life has significantly declined. It’s about providing an option when all other alternatives have been exhausted and respecting the patient's right to choose their own fate. You mentioned the advancements in palliative care, which indeed play a crucial role in managing pain and providing comfort to terminally ill patients. However, palliative care, while vital, does not always address the full scope of a patient’s suffering. For instance, a person may have physical pain managed yet still experience overwhelming mental or existential distress. For many, this psychological anguish, which cannot always be addressed through palliative care, becomes unbearable. While palliative care should remain a priority in end-of-life care, there are cases where euthanasia provides a direct solution for patients who cannot find peace despite the best available palliative treatments. Research from Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics highlights that palliative care is invaluable but may not always relieve all forms of suffering, particularly psychological or existential distress. For some patients, euthanasia becomes a compassionate option when no other alternatives seem to provide relief. A study in Oxford Academic also underscores that euthanasia can be seen as complementary to palliative care, offering patients control over their fate when their suffering becomes unbearable and unmanageable You also argue that there is no such thing as a "good death" and that involving healthcare professionals in euthanasia turns death into a "procedure." I understand how this could be seen as unnatural, and I appreciate your perspective. However, the ethical question is not whether death itself is good or bad but whether it is right to allow a person who is suffering unbearably to make the decision to end their life. Many,myself included, see this as respecting the person’s autonomy, rather than forcing them to endure suffering against their will. Euthanasia laws, where they exist(in my country so it might contribute to my perspective in the matter), are designed to protect the patient’s autonomy and ensure that the decision is made carefully. Safeguards are put in place, such as requiring multiple consultations with healthcare professionals and, in some cases, psychological evaluations, to ensure that the decision is voluntary and well-considered. These steps help ensure that euthanasia is not a hasty decision but a deeply personal one, taken with full awareness of its implications. You raise a valid concern about the ethics of healthcare providers being involved in euthanasia. However, modern medical ethics has evolved to prioritize not only the duty to preserve life but also the duty to alleviate suffering and respect the autonomy of patients. In my opinion,by supporting a patient’s decision to choose euthanasia, healthcare providers are respecting the patient’s right to end their suffering on their own terms. In many cases, patients who request euthanasia do so not out of a desire to “give up” on life but as a means to maintain control over their death in a way that aligns with their values. They see euthanasia as a way to preserve their dignity and avoid prolonged suffering, which they find more humane than a slow, painful decline. I don't see this process as diminishing the value of life but rather allowing the patient to determine their own end in a way that feels right to them. I understand your view that ending a patient’s life is a morally complex issue and it is. However, I believe that euthanasia, when carried out under strict guidelines and with careful safeguards, can be a compassionate and ethical response to extreme suffering. It allows patients to retain autonomy over their death and offers a dignified way to end suffering when all other options have been exhausted. It’s not about undermining the value of life but about respecting individual choice, alleviating suffering, and ensuring that patients can make decisions that align with their personal beliefs and values. (However in the show I don’t think all the doctor’s patients gave consent so I don’t agree with him and think it’s m*rder) (PS : Sorry it’s super long lol ) If you want to read about it + studies I mentionned : https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide-are-compatible-with-palliative-care-and-are-not-rendered-redundant-by-it/53C31E4CCCA351813D680AC4B8A75357
It’s lacking, that’s for sure, but it’s not bad. I still think it’s fun to watch as long as you adjust…
I personally like it and am really enjoying I'm pretty sure I like this version better than the thai one as an overall (on some point I do agree that the Thai one is better like the friendship SkyRain - ReiKay) but it's been a long time since I watched the thai one so I might not remember well lol I think you should test out the first episode and decide what you wanna do from there
So like at first Great saved everyone and got shot then we got a vesrsion where he didn't and then there was this whole thing with ther presentation I guess i'm confused about what actually did happen and what didn't
Kluer knew there was something between Chef and Plawan. And it was obvious Wan didn't reciprocate his feelings.…
Sorry for the late answer. Now, I get your point and I do agree on some aspects but I see things a bit differently. First of all, confessing your feelings can actually be an important step in moving on. When you confront your emotions head-on, it allows you to process the reality of the situation, and in Kluer’s case, confessing his feelings would give him closure. Rejection can be painful, yes, but it's often more painful to carry around the weight of unspoken feelings. Without a confession, there's always ambiguity, and that makes it harder for someone to let go and move forward.
As for the idea that it’s selfish to confess, I think it’s important to recognize that selfishness can go both ways. If Kluer held back his confession simply to keep Plawan comfortable, that would be an act of self-denial at his own expense. It’s equally selfish for Plawan to avoid hearing Kluer’s feelings just because it might make him uncomfortable. In this case, Plawan chose to pretend he was asleep rather than face Kluer’s confession, and that’s not just avoidance it’s dismissive and disrespectful. Kluer was vulnerable, and Plawan refused to engage.
That said, you're right that confessing can seem selfish in the sense that it might create discomfort for the other person. But, the truth is, the person being rejected is often the one who suffers the most. They’re the one dealing with unreturned feelings and likely facing the loss of both a romantic connection and possibly a friendship. And they are the “cause” of it.
At some point, a little selfishness is necessary. People sometimes have to put their needs first in order to heal and grow.
In the end, confessing isn’t just about “imposing feelings” on someone. It’s about being honest with yourself, honoring your emotions, and accepting that rejection,though painful,can be a path to healing. It might seem selfish in the moment, but in the long run, it’s a necessary act of self-care.
Plawan could have at least let Kluer confess. It's really unfair that he didn't even get the chance to be rejected. Confessing is such a significant act, as it takes a lot of courage to express your feelings, regardless of the outcome. Kluer gathered that courage, and he wasn't able to do it. I knew Plawan was going to reject him, and that's okay, but the problem is that he didn't even try to reject him gently—he just pretended to be asleep. By denying Kluer the opportunity to express himself, Plawan dismissed the value of Kluer's feelings and bravery.
Okay I know Kluer is hurt but that’s so pathetic to claim to love someone but the minute they don’t feel the same you hurt them—That is not love I really hoped he wouldn’t expose Plawan I really wanted him to come clean to Oab by himself If he had exposed Plawan only because he wants to save the restaurant and to protect Oab it would be okay but the reasons he does it it’s to break them up and make them miserable just like he is or just to hurt Plawan His love for the restaurant may be part of it but I feel like if Plawan hadn’t rejected him then he would have talked to him and then decided wether to tell Oab or not
Are they even trying to make us like Ming or give him a redemption arc ? Because he is still the same as the beginning I can’t stand him and it is so frustrating that I feel like Joe will just forgive him.Anyone else feel like Joe is too nice with Ming ? Like regardless of their history if you take what he does in the present Joe never really draw boundaries between them .The way he invited himself into his house was so disrespectful and he didn’t say anything about how he was overstepping
Medicine indeed traditionally aims to preserve life, but it is also about alleviating suffering and respecting patient autonomy. When a person experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be alleviated through conventional means, the role of the healthcare provider shifts from simply preserving life to managing pain and ensuring dignity. In cases where palliative care fails to address the full spectrum of suffering—especially psychological and existential pain—euthanasia can offer a compassionate alternative.
For me, euthanasia, in this context, is not about taking life prematurely but about respecting the autonomy of the patient to decide how and when to end their suffering. Recent studies highlight that euthanasia is often considered by patients who feel their suffering has become unbearable and that their dignity can no longer be preserved through other means. I read a study (I believe it was made in 2023) which emphasized that euthanasia provides patients with a way to exercise control over their death when no other options remain, ensuring they can die in a manner that aligns with their values. This choice is seen as an expression of autonomy, allowing individuals to avoid prolonged suffering when their quality of life has significantly declined. It’s about providing an option when all other alternatives have been exhausted and respecting the patient's right to choose their own fate.
You mentioned the advancements in palliative care, which indeed play a crucial role in managing pain and providing comfort to terminally ill patients. However, palliative care, while vital, does not always address the full scope of a patient’s suffering. For instance, a person may have physical pain managed yet still experience overwhelming mental or existential distress. For many, this psychological anguish, which cannot always be addressed through palliative care, becomes unbearable.
While palliative care should remain a priority in end-of-life care, there are cases where euthanasia provides a direct solution for patients who cannot find peace despite the best available palliative treatments. Research from Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics highlights that palliative care is invaluable but may not always relieve all forms of suffering, particularly psychological or existential distress. For some patients, euthanasia becomes a compassionate option when no other alternatives seem to provide relief. A study in Oxford Academic also underscores that euthanasia can be seen as complementary to palliative care, offering patients control over their fate when their suffering becomes unbearable and unmanageable
You also argue that there is no such thing as a "good death" and that involving healthcare professionals in euthanasia turns death into a "procedure." I understand how this could be seen as unnatural, and I appreciate your perspective. However, the ethical question is not whether death itself is good or bad but whether it is right to allow a person who is suffering unbearably to make the decision to end their life. Many,myself included, see this as respecting the person’s autonomy, rather than forcing them to endure suffering against their will.
Euthanasia laws, where they exist(in my country so it might contribute to my perspective in the matter), are designed to protect the patient’s autonomy and ensure that the decision is made carefully. Safeguards are put in place, such as requiring multiple consultations with healthcare professionals and, in some cases, psychological evaluations, to ensure that the decision is voluntary and well-considered. These steps help ensure that euthanasia is not a hasty decision but a deeply personal one, taken with full awareness of its implications.
You raise a valid concern about the ethics of healthcare providers being involved in euthanasia. However, modern medical ethics has evolved to prioritize not only the duty to preserve life but also the duty to alleviate suffering and respect the autonomy of patients. In my opinion,by supporting a patient’s decision to choose euthanasia, healthcare providers are respecting the patient’s right to end their suffering on their own terms.
In many cases, patients who request euthanasia do so not out of a desire to “give up” on life but as a means to maintain control over their death in a way that aligns with their values. They see euthanasia as a way to preserve their dignity and avoid prolonged suffering, which they find more humane than a slow, painful decline. I don't see this process as diminishing the value of life but rather allowing the patient to determine their own end in a way that feels right to them.
I understand your view that ending a patient’s life is a morally complex issue and it is. However, I believe that euthanasia, when carried out under strict guidelines and with careful safeguards, can be a compassionate and ethical response to extreme suffering. It allows patients to retain autonomy over their death and offers a dignified way to end suffering when all other options have been exhausted. It’s not about undermining the value of life but about respecting individual choice, alleviating suffering, and ensuring that patients can make decisions that align with their personal beliefs and values.
(However in the show I don’t think all the doctor’s patients gave consent so I don’t agree with him and think it’s m*rder)
(PS : Sorry it’s super long lol )
If you want to read about it + studies I mentionned : https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide-are-compatible-with-palliative-care-and-are-not-rendered-redundant-by-it/53C31E4CCCA351813D680AC4B8A75357
https://academic.oup.com/book/37029/chapter-abstract/322599850?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
https://www.internationalscholarsjournals.com/articles/human-dignity-and-autonomy-in-euthanasia-a-sociological-perspective-on-life-and-death.pdf
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access-pdfs/euthanasia-examining-the-controversy-and-ethical-dilemmas-surrounding-endoflife-choices.pdf
Now, I get your point and I do agree on some aspects but I see things a bit differently.
First of all, confessing your feelings can actually be an important step in moving on. When you confront your emotions head-on, it allows you to process the reality of the situation, and in Kluer’s case, confessing his feelings would give him closure. Rejection can be painful, yes, but it's often more painful to carry around the weight of unspoken feelings. Without a confession, there's always ambiguity, and that makes it harder for someone to let go and move forward.
As for the idea that it’s selfish to confess, I think it’s important to recognize that selfishness can go both ways. If Kluer held back his confession simply to keep Plawan comfortable, that would be an act of self-denial at his own expense. It’s equally selfish for Plawan to avoid hearing Kluer’s feelings just because it might make him uncomfortable. In this case, Plawan chose to pretend he was asleep rather than face Kluer’s confession, and that’s not just avoidance it’s dismissive and disrespectful. Kluer was vulnerable, and Plawan refused to engage.
That said, you're right that confessing can seem selfish in the sense that it might create discomfort for the other person. But, the truth is, the person being rejected is often the one who suffers the most. They’re the one dealing with unreturned feelings and likely facing the loss of both a romantic connection and possibly a friendship. And they are the “cause” of it.
At some point, a little selfishness is necessary. People sometimes have to put their needs first in order to heal and grow.
In the end, confessing isn’t just about “imposing feelings” on someone. It’s about being honest with yourself, honoring your emotions, and accepting that rejection,though painful,can be a path to healing. It might seem selfish in the moment, but in the long run, it’s a necessary act of self-care.
Okay I know Kluer is hurt but that’s so pathetic to claim to love someone but the minute they don’t feel the same you hurt them—That is not love
I really hoped he wouldn’t expose Plawan I really wanted him to come clean to Oab by himself
If he had exposed Plawan only because he wants to save the restaurant and to protect Oab it would be okay but the reasons he does it it’s to break them up and make them miserable just like he is or just to hurt Plawan
His love for the restaurant may be part of it but I feel like if Plawan hadn’t rejected him then he would have talked to him and then decided wether to tell Oab or not