My thought when I saw the first episode of the series was that it tried to establish a strong connection between showing mercy to a suffering animal by putting it to sleep and showing mercy to a suffering terminally ill human.

The topic of Euthanasia is very debatable and that's why only few countries have made it legal...there are various concerns regarding the choice of Euthanasia by an individual, whether:

*the person is in a fit mental state of mind to decide.
* The person is being coerced ( by the family)
* Doctors' abusing the power given to them. etc. etc.

I believe a person who is still mentally fit should be allowed to decide if they wish to end their life.

However, Can a person suffering extreme pain whose mind is clouded by pain medications be competent enough to make a rational judgement? Should the family members/ doctors' have the right to decide the fate of a terminally ill patient without their explicit consent (as in the case of putting an animal to sleep)?

The whole discussion is never ending , so in the end it comes down to morality and legality.


I feel the show focuses more on Compassion versus Law and Murder versus Mercy.

In the eyes of the law, things are weighed as per the rules and regulations, no room for feelings.

Freeing someone whom you care about from further suffering is an act of mercy, but law considers it a punishable crime, similar to that of a deliberate murder.

Motive plays a primary role in differentiating between the deaths of various people... how is one person's action of taking a life different from the other killer(s)? when legally all are crimes. The question here is not who the killer is, but why and how that person chooses to take a life.

What is most interesting for me in this series is not the mystery of who dunnit because that is not the highlight of the series. The cornerstone of the series is the moral ambiguity of the characters.

None of the character in the series is pure black or white.

We live in a society of flawed humans. The law has many loopholes and is imperfect but by and large it safeguards our society by protecting the weak.
So the question is left up to the audience as to how they regard the actions of these characters and whom do they sympathise with.


Overall: thought provoking and trying to present various viewpoints on the much debatable, sensitive topic of Euthanasia.


_____________________________________




CHARACTER ANALYSIS::::: CONTAINS SPOILERS from the series in order to discuss their motivation and ideologies on Euthanasia.

(Don't read the review further if you want to REMAIN SPOILER FREE.)


Interestingly all the below mentioned characters were connected to a terminally ill patient, the viewers are a shown a glimpse of their life when they witnessed the suffering of their loved ones how that affects their outlook on Euthanasia.


*The police captain, Thiu strongly suspects Dr.Kan and wants the guilty to be punished as per law but his heart doesn't allow him to remain completely unbiased in this case. Even though Thiu is sceptical , he is ready to accept any slightest evidence to prove Dr.kan's innocence without dwelling too deeper into it. Thiu's mother was terminally ill and he had transferred to a remote place to took a posting there but before he arrived, Dr.Kan had Euthanized his mother as per her request. He was unable to bid her a proper goodbye which remains his greatest regret.

*Dr.Kan may have started on this path for mercy and ending the suffering of patients, but somehow along the way did he become desensitised to killing? What he did in episode 7 to Boss was for a selfish reason and a clear crime. Dr.Kan's mother was terminally ill and he saw her constant suffering and his own father's helplessness that's why he chose to be a Doctor and was an advocate of Euthanasia.

* Boss who has seen his family destroyed due to his terminally ill father (his mother, unable to take care of his father killed his father and then committed suicide herself) admires Dr.kan for his stance on Euthanasia but doesn't understand that Dr.Kan doesn't enthasnise a patient to reduce the burden of care taking from family members' shoulder. Boss doesn't understand the concept of taking consent from the patients. He wants to reduce the family's burden.

* Nurse Onanong, started supporting Dr.kan when someone dear to her was terminally ill and wished to end their suffering. Nurse On tried to perform euthanasia but couldn't go through with it, at that time Dr.Kan like an angel of mercy came and helped her. He showed her the path to reduce the suffering of the terminally ill patients in a painless manner.

* Director Somsak, he was a staunch advocate of the Hippocratic Oath, was against Abortion or Euthanasia. He believed that doctor's job was to care for terminally ill patients to the best of their ability. His male lover who was Dr.Kan's mentor had been terminally ill, Somsak being a loving person wanted to spend the last few months with his lover but was deprived of that solace due to Dr.Kan euthanizing his lover.




__________________________________________________

:::::::::::::Trivia::::::::::::

Episode 1 and 2

Just by watching the first two episodes I think the series is posing a serious question as to when does Euthanasia cross the line of showing mercy Versus murder.

So far in the first two episodes, there have been deaths of three terminally ill patients.

1. The police captain's mother ( she seemed to be quite rational and seemed to be in too much pain, but did she choose to end her life? Didn't she want to spend some time with her son who was taking a transfer to be near her?

2. Another terminally ill person, but his family was taking quite good care of him...they were hoping that they could live with him for as long as possible. I don't know if he would have chosen euthanasia?

3.The aged father who was clearly a burden to his children....but for me, his death was a blatant murder... because inspite of his advanced illness and pain, he clearly resisted and showed signs of wanting to live.


So the question is, If Euthanasia was really a choice of the above three people or was it forced upon them?


Episode 3
In episode 3, Dr.Kan injects the terminally ill tribal man after asking for his consent...even though he may not have been responsible for ALL 3 deaths in the previous 2 episodes, he certainly Euthanised the man in episode 3.

So legally he could already be a criminal, as I believe active Euthanasia is not sanctioned in Thailand...

Therefore irrespective of other people who he may or may not have euthanized, he is already guilty and is punishable by law.

Now we just have to see whether there is someone else besides him who is ethuanising terminally ill without their consent.