#order Euthanasia

[nembutalaustralia]

Is there any place to buy Nembutal in Perth Australia?

Buy Nembutal in Sydney Australia a short-acting barbiturate typically used as a sedative but gained prominence for its use in voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. For euthanasia, Nembutal is taken alone, or in combination with complementary agents such as phenytoin, in commercial animal euthanasia injectable solutions where it causes death in high doses.

People choose Nembutal for suicide because it is very easy to administer and provides a peaceful passing after just 3 minutes of consumption. Getting Nembutal can be very difficult though from testimonies of people who have tried acquiring the illicit drug. It is even more difficult for Australians due to their strict drug laws hence they buy it from the black-market. The problems faced by many Australians trying to buy Nembutal online is customs seizing packages. This is for those who try to buy the drug oversea but if you buy directly from Buy Nembutal in Sydney Australia then you have no problem.

BuyNembutalinAustralia.org provides a list of verified and genuine Nembutal vendors in Sydney Australia hence you do not have to worry about your package getting seized. Simply send an email today to BuyNembutalinAustralia.org and buy Nembutal in Sydney Australia.

How to buy Nembutal in Sydney Australia

No matter where you are in Australia, you can order Nembutal online from our vendors and have it delivered within 2 hours. The process is very simple and straightforward. Once we confirm you are not police and have a genuine health condition, we give you the vendor’s email. You make contact with the vendor, pay and then receive the Nembutal powder or solution anywhere in Australia. The vendors cover the following cities in Australia:

Adelaide

Brisbane

Cairns

Canberra

Darwin

Gold Coast

Hobart

Launceston

Melbourne

Newcastle

Perth

Sydney

Toowoomba

Townsville

Wollongong

For the above cities, you can order Nembutal and have it dropped within 2 hours. No need trying to buy Nembutal overseas when you can simply order in Australia and have it delivered same day. Send us an email today and get the contact of the Nembutal vendor in Australia.

Why terminally ill elderly Australians buy Nembutal

Terminally ill people and elderly Australians buy Nembutal because of its use in Euthanasia. Nembutal can cause death when used in high doses and the lethal dose is 12grams. It is used for euthanasia for humans as well as animals. It is taken alone, or in combination with complementary agents such as phenytoin, in commercial animal euthanasia injectable solutions.

In countries like Switzerland where euthanasia is legal, Nembutal is administered to the patient intravenously. Once administered, sleep is induced within 30 seconds, and the heart stops beating within 3 minutes. Oral administration is also used. A Swiss pharmacist reported in 2022 that the dose for assisted suicide had been raised to 15 grams because with lower doses death was preceded by a coma of up to 10 hours in some cases.

[zhouxiangs]

SASA'S TOP 5 BLORBOS OF 2024

Poom Phuripan as JOE JARUKIT/JIRACHAI in My Stand-In / Nut Supanut as WAY PONRAWAT in Pit Babe / Tor Thanapob as KAN KANTAPAT in Spare Me Your Mercy / Dong Sicheng as SITU WEILIAN in Snowfall / Offroad Kantapon as VEE KANKAWEE in Century of Love

[apas-95]

news headline: democratic mayor signs order to put all immigrants and gay people in concentration camps

liberal blogger: lmaooo this is so misleadling please actually read the article. he's working to relocate at-risk populations into humanitarian facilities where they can receive state-funded euthanasia

[queenslayerbee]

the cannibalistic rituals™ in yellowjackets are very different to those in (one of) my cannibalistic rituals™ WIP (the travels of soyolmaa, specifically). but. there's... something in there that definitely resonates on that front.

[lurkingshan]

Spare Me Your Mercy is a mystery BL for grown ups and I am so excited to dig into its themes unpacking morality and ethics around palliative care and euthanasia, caretaking for terminally ill loved ones, health care in under resourced communities, and policing.

I love that rather than having a long drawn out arc around whether someone is mercy killing terminal patients in this rural town, it's already clear in episode 1 that this is exactly what's happening, and our prime suspects are all laid out clearly. We've got Dr. Kan, the one (1) doctor who manages palliative care for this entire community, his colleagues who all clearly have some degree of knowledge about what is going on here and are helping to cover, and the coroner's office, where the loyalties may or may not be mixed. Into this fray we throw our protagonist, Tew, who is returning home on a transfer that he took so that he could be with his mother in her last days, only to have her mercy killed the night before he made it home.

And this is where the tension between Tew and Kan gets really interesting. Kan clearly believes that death is a kindness for these patients who are in pain and whose families are overburdened or fully neglecting them, and he is confident to the point of arrogance when questioned about his patients. He is unwavering in his conviction that what he's doing is right. At the same time, we opened this story with Tew's grief over not getting to see his mother before she died, which presumably is because Kan killed her. Kan did that to Tew, and despite knowing he is the reason Tew is grieving not only his mother's life but also his own chance to say goodbye, he keeps needling him about it. Kan is not a nice man, and I am always wary of doctors who deem themselves the ultimate authority over other people's lives. And on the flip side of that, Tew is a cop and trying to play at bringing order to a community he abandoned and doesn't really understand anymore. He mercy killed an animal in the opening sequence, and while killing a human and killing an animal are certainly not the same, I don't think it's an accident that we've seen Tew take this action.

I expect this show will have a nuanced and thought-provoking perspective on these issues, and I am so excited to see it unfold.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Some Law-Related Vocabulary

for your poem/story (pt. 2/4)

Admiralty - of or relating to conduct on the sea

Alter ego - second self

Attractive nuisance - a thing or condition on one's property that poses a risk to children who may be attracted to it without realizing the risk by virtue of their youth

Bequest - an act of bequeathing

Bequeath - to give by will

Bona vacantia - goods that are unclaimed and without an apparent owner

Capricious - governed or characterized by impulse or whim (e.g., lacking a rational basis; likely to change suddenly); not supported by the weight of evidence or established rules of law—often used in the phrase "arbitrary and capricious"

Colorable - having an appearance of truth, validity, or right

Damnum absque injuria - a loss for which the law provides no means of recovery

Dying declaration - a statement that is made by a person who firmly believes that he or she is about to die and has no hope of recovery and that concerns the circumstances or cause of the presumed death

Eleemosynary - of, relating to, or supported by charity

En ventre sa mere - in the womb

Euthanasia - the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured persons in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy; called also "mercy killing"

Exculpate - to clear from alleged fault or guilt

Filius nullius - an illegitimate child; bastard; called also "filius populi"

Finger - to accuse or identify as guilty

Fireman's rule - a doctrine holding that a property owner or occupant is not liable for unintentional injuries suffered by firefighters or police officers in responding to a problem on the property

First blush - initial view, appearance, or consideration—used especially in the phrase "at first blush"

First degree - the grade given to the most serious forms of crimes

Hereditament - inheritable property

Homestead - a home and surrounding land

Inchoate - not yet made complete, certain, or specific : not perfected

M'Naghten test - a standard under which a criminal defendant is considered to have been insane at the time of an act (as a killing) if he or she did not know right from wrong or did not understand the moral nature of the act because of a mental disease or defect; called also "M'Naghten rule"

Mulct - fine, penalty

Mysterious disappearance - the loss of property under unknown or puzzling circumstances which are difficult to explain or understand

Pierce - to see through the usually misleading or false appearance of

Poison pill - a financial tactic or provision used by a company to make an unwanted takeover prohibitively expensive or less desirable

Prior art - the processes, devices, and modes of achieving the end of an alleged invention that were known or knowable by due diligence before and at the date of the invention

Pur autre vie - for another's life

Shark repellent - any measure taken by a corporation to discourage a hostile takeover attempt

Silent record - a record of a criminal proceeding which does not show that the defendant acted with knowledge or understanding of his or her rights (as in entering a plea of guilty or waiving the right to counsel)

Sui generis - constituting a class alone; unique or particular to itself

Vexatious - lacking a sufficient ground and serving only to annoy or harass when viewed objectively

Wrongful birth - a malpractice claim brought by the parents of a child born with a birth defect against a physician or health-care provider whose alleged negligence (as in prenatal testing or diagnosis) effectively deprived the parents of the opportunity to make an informed decision whether to avoid or terminate the pregnancy

Yellow-dog contract - an illegal employment contract in which a worker disavows membership in and agrees not to join a labor union in order to get a job

More: Law-Related Words ⚜ Word Lists

[thatisaloaf]

Todays mental health advice: listen to tomcat disposables, euthanasia, and becoming the lastnames in that order and cry

[checkoutmybookshelf]

Dr. Seward. John. SIR.

Can we talk about your journal entry today for a hot second??? Because like...broski doski. What the actual fuck do you MEAN that "'Euthanasia' is an excellent and a comforting word! I am grateful to whoever invented it"???

I get that staking Lucy was traumatic for you, but maybe don't dissociate so hard from the idea of staking Mina if she turns that you start getting comforted by the term euthanasia. No freaking WONDER Jonathan is hiding his thoughts and intentions from you and Van Helsing and won't let go of his big-ass knife. He is getting ready to DEFEND HIS WIFE FROM YOU.

And yes, I know, Mina specifically made you promise to stake her if it becomes necessary. But like...SHE IS TRANSCRIBING THIS AND YOU KNOW THAT, SO MAYBE THINK TWICE ABOUT THIS MUSING???

Also, the fact that Van Helsing had to order you to write with a pen and paper is hilarious.

[drferox]

If you’re a parent of a teenager, there is something I need you to understand.

Getting your 14yo human a dog, especially a high energy, high intelligence breed like a German Shepherd/Kelpie/Husky, in order to teach your child ‘responsibility’ will not actually teach that child responsibility unless you are the one being responsible.

This is especially true when you tell me something like “I’m the discipline one at home, and my child is the enabling one,” and I can see the bite marks on your arms already from this little puppy, who’s going to get five times bigger before you get five times smarter.

At best, your child will discuss how you set them up to fail with their future therapist. At worst, this dog will become a behavioural euthanasia.

At the very least, if this dog really is your child’s responsibility, you should be bringing the child to the vet appointment where we discuss the dog’s health and behaviour.

Because I’m quite confident you’re not going to pass my advice on to the person you’re pretending is responsible for that dog, you might even lie about what I’ve recommended. At least give them the chance to get some good information.

[maxdibert]

“Sirius killed people-“ so did Snape, supposedly loved Lily but betrayed her location to Voldemort because he was jealous of James actually winning her heart, not to mention convincing Harry the abuse was his fault, nearly giving Neville PTSD to the point where his boggart was Severus Snape himself, being a racist pos to anyone born of muggle parents, and becoming a high ranking member of the death eaters so what? He could protect Harry?

“It’s easier to cry in a Ferrari-“

it’s easier to defend a terrible character and play the racism and eat the rich card when you can’t understand context and inference clues that JK Rowling laid out.

What’s easy is inventing canon. What a load of made-up nonsense, mate.

1. Learn to read. I didn’t say Sirius killed anyone, but he did attempt murder. And he did it because he thought it was funny to torture Severus.

2. There’s no evidence that Severus killed anyone before Dumbledore asked him for euthanasia. This is made quite clear when Dumbledore talks about his concern for Draco’s soul, and Severus immediately questions him about his own soul. If Severus is so worried about it, it’s implied he hadn’t killed anyone before—or at least not in cold blood.

3. Have you even read the books? The only person who knew the Potters’ location was Peter. He’s the one who betrayed them.

4. There’s no evidence he was a racist. First off, equating racism with the concept of blood purity not only trivializes a serious social issue but also makes it clear that some of you have no idea what racism is or its history. The discriminatory dynamics and their foundations are completely different. But anyway, putting that aside, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Severus discriminated against Muggle-borns. The only time he makes a comment is during the incident with Lily—which, conveniently, happens when James and Sirius are sexually assaulting him, and Lily seems to smile at James. I don’t think you can judge someone’s ideology based on a comment made in an extremely tense moment. Canonically, Severus doesn’t treat Muggle-born students worse in class or make comments about their heritage. Nor does he badmouth Muggles. At most, he makes condescending remarks—which, let’s be real, all the characters do, even the “good ones,” because they’re ridiculously patronizing toward Muggles.

5. Severus was literally a double agent and reached the highest ranks of the Death Eaters to, yes, protect Harry. That’s literally why. He’s following Dumbledore’s orders. Like, have you read the books, or are you just pulling this stuff from fanfics? 99% of what you’ve said so far is pure fantasy, mate.

6. Yes, love, it’s actually pretty easy for me to defend people whose actions are a direct consequence of their life circumstances, and whose poor decisions were directly influenced by a lack of opportunities, security, and the violence of their environment. In fact, that’s literally my job. That’s what I do for a living.

Look, I don’t give a damn if you’re a Sirius fangirl. You can love a character while admitting he was a massive piece of crap. I love The Penguin, and there’s no way to justify him at all. Like, it’s fine, you know? You also have every right to feel sorry for him—I’m not going to judge you for that or anything. I’m not invalidating other people’s feelings if they think Sirius’s life was super tragic and feel a lot of compassion for him. Everyone has their own feelings and points of empathy. But that’s not the case for me. I don’t feel sorry for him. There’s no excuse for being an abusive bully with sociopathic tendencies toward someone who was canonically in a position of social and economic disadvantage. If Severus had come from a good family, with money and power—or if Sirius had been someone without a name, wealth, or status—then I’d view the situation differently because they would have been on equal footing. But just like the Black family chose Muggle-borns to torture because they knew they could, Sirius chose Severus because he knew he could. He’s a hypocrite and a piece of garbage. At least Bellatrix admitted her tendencies.

[benkaben]

Regarding this interview about the portrayal of intimacy in Euthanasia...

I can't say I'm happy with any of it.

Because okay. You don't want the romance to derail from the drama? But still want it to be clear there's a romance there?

Then build it up, genuinely, show the characters grow closer and how they like each other, create moments between them that show the romance happening, not just state it for the audience verbally.

And hey, you don't need NC scenes for that! No, sexual intimacy is not the only thing that "proves" a romance exist.

I mean heck, you could even go all the way around and have all the NC scenes in the world and still present a story where the characters aren't in love with each other, because sex ≠ romance. Absolutely.

But also I'm, really tired™, of this idea that any kind of sex portrayed in media is only going to "taint" the final composition. As If sex and love stories were some dirty stain that automatically made the work lesser: Less serious, less formal, less dramatic.

I don't agree with the idea that you have to sacrifice intimacy in order to be taken seriously. I don't agree with the idea that sex is by default, just fanservice and therefore it's portrayal subtracts automatically from the story.

And don't even get me started on the way this idea is so prevalent specially when it comes to queer media.

I have never, in my life, encounter someone bashing Dark because it contains sex and nudes, I have seen more respect shown for the sex scene in Midsommar than for the explicit kiss of Catra and Adora, and I would argue we have at least a couple of good shows that discuss heavy topics without needing to censor themselves when it comes to CHARACTERS HAVING SEX.

It doesn't have to be One or The Other, and continuing pushing this idea that it has to, either your work becomes un-pure or can't be taken as seriously as you wish, is nothing but purity culture bullshit, and I'm mad, and so, so tired to still be having this discussion all over again

[l3irdl3rain]

Just the Two of Them (they can make it if they tryyyy!)

Hope you are doing okay. I'm so, so sorry about Merrill. Also please kiss Arthur's goofy head for me

top 10 silliest looking creatures of all time. Numbers 6 and 7 will shock you!!!

I am doing okay. I’m in a little bit of a slump but the weather has finally improved after a week of rain and some snow. This was unfortunate timing though bc I now have a whole week off work at the clinic and I prefer to keep myself busy while I’m grieving, otherwise I just sit around and mope and that’s no good for my mental health. When I got home after the euthanasia yesterday a Kermit the frog shirt I’d ordered had been delivered. That was cool.

[waitmyturtles]

Final Thoughts on Spare Me Your Mercy, Thailand's Biggest Queer Show of 2024*

(*domestically!)

Due to the holidays, I was behind on watching last week's finale of Spare Me Your Mercy, but I got it in, and I'm glad I did.

I am mucho on the record that I thought, throughout this series, that the romance portion of this series was done weakly. I throughly enjoyed and appreciated @clairedaring's objective and appreciative commentary throughout the airing of this drama to provide all of us with context about novel!SMYM versus series!SMYM, helping us to understand what of the many bits were missing between the two versions of this story.

There has been a nice lot of debate online about the ultimate success of the telling of the SMYM story in drama format, both pro and not so pro regarding the script. There was also quite the revealing interview with the screenwriter Lux Sirilux, who revealed that the show's design purposely excluded NC scenes to favor more time being spent on the euthanasia ethics debate (thank you so much to @clairedaring for reblogging so much, I wouldn't have these references without you!).

I want to note that even despite the recent holidays, that the heightened online burble of debate around SMYM indicates to me -- like the ensuing debates after the airing of the 4 Minutes finale -- that the story of the SMYM drama format didn't land for everyone. If it was universally successful in its storytelling from all the classic narrative markers, then much of this debate would not be happening.

I first entered the SMYM world understanding that it was a part of a storytelling trilogy of sorts, connecting Sammon's previously adapted stories in 2020's Manner of Death and 2022's Triage (I haven't reviewed Triage yet, but I watched it in 2024 and it is absolutely one of the five best Thai BLs I have ever watched.)

To go back to the Lux interview quickly, and to note fan commentary in defense of Lux's position: what Lux Sirilux posits is that the show essentially decentralized NC scenes and intimacy in favor of giving the script more time to dwell on a debate about euthanasia -- the ethics and morality of being a part of a person's death, and the ethics of a person deciding to die in the first place. The defense of this position essentially stated: well, because the show wasn't intended to be about romance, then why criticize it on its romantic context?

When I think back to the show's original positioning as a part of the MoD/Triage trilogy, I think to myself: the couples of TanBun and TinTol were absolutely central, as romantic pairs, to the success of those two stories, and both shows absolutely balanced their mystery elements so as to leave us fully satisfied on two (!!) genre fronts. At least, before SMYM premiered, to be excited about the TorJJ/KanTew coupling was therefore a reasonable expectation.

As well: there was a lot of implied attraction and romance in SMYM. A lot!

All these scenes! And we had more.

As soon as this show started airing, I was pulling for it to work as well as Manner of Death and Triage had. And I was side-eyeing to my drama homies about what I was smelling, when I started to feel like SMYM was NOT working. While a defense that the show was never meant to be a romance is... an interesting postscript to ponder: I don't buy it, because many elements that were clearly designed to otherwise communicate romance actually failed. I squinted heavily at the middle episodes of this series, really wondering, ".....so......are these guys.... DATING? Just feeling things out?!"

If these elements weren't actually intended to be in the show, the attraction between Kan and Tew, then -- why did we get them?

What was missing, narratively, for me? It was emotional context based in the reality of how I understand intimacy to function between two humans -- an understanding that, in the very best of art, I don't need to suspend in order to make a narratively unsuccessful show otherwise work.

The progression of emotional (let alone physical) intimacy was choppy in this series, to say the least. @clairedaring gave us the very important context early on that the novel version of SMYM had two volumes -- the first of which focused on KanTew's dating, before the ethical clashes of euthanasia entered the picture. If we had had that narrative context in the drama, the drama would have worked wonders, and I believe the crew was working throughout this debate in the writing process, from how the script turned out.

The script here did not work, because even if romance was intentionally deprioritized to focus on the euthanasia debate -- many episodes still spent too much time on KanTew, without giving us viewers an emotional journey for us to understand where they were in their emotional intimacy. And I posit, because the script seemed to be so indecisive, that the euthanasia debate got lost for much of the show as well. Up until the end, in the final episode, with that utterly fabulous attic scene.

If only the show had the strength of dialogue and conflict as that attic scene! I wrote yesterday that Tor and JJ will win awards for the whole series, based on that scene alone. That scene finally held the full and holistic scope of the tension between Kan and Tew totally bursting out in all its glory.

Let me just note, though, that we had to get through the first half of the episode to get to that scene -- a first half that really, REALLY made Kan look like an AWFUL LYING SCUMBAG to Tew (HOW COULD YOU LIE TO TEW LIKE THAT IN YOUR HOSPITAL BED, KAN, AND TELL HIM THAT HIS PAIN HE WAS FEELING WAS GUILT, YOU MF'ING ASSHOLE, okay I got it out of my system). Really, with all the lying Kan was doing to Tew about Tew's mom, I was praying that Tew would do the full COPS treatment on Kan, "Bad Boys" and all.

Kan was, in my absolutely personal opinion, ultimately rendered unforgivable during that first half of the finale (regardless of my personal thoughts on the ethics of euthanasia) simply because of his disingenuousness to Tew. The penultimate conversation in attic between Kan and Tew was a phenomenal encapsulation to the ethical conflict that Kan and Tew had danced around for the entire series -- and it highlighted, to me, again, where the script had failed the show, because it actually put a spotlight on moments when the EXCELLENT and FASCINATING nuances of the euthanasia debate in Thailand were sidelined for weak attempts at romantic development. (The socioeconomic nuances, the inequity in health care nuances, the impact that terminal illness has on caretakers, all of them! GAH!)

My takeaway from all of this is that the crew of this show did not hit the exact and delicate formula of deciding what the crux of this show should have been about, despite the commentary we received posthaste from the screenwriter. While the intention of that commentary indicated that the euthanasia debate was supposed to be the only center of the show -- too much time was spent showing us KanTew moments, and those moments lacked context and clarity to give us viewers an understanding of where they stood in their engagement or relationship at any one time. Thus, I do think the postscript commentary from the crew was also a touch disingenuous, regarding the success of the narrative itself as art.

And — I believe it was also disingenuous to the two previously adapted Sammon stories of Manner of Death and Triage as well, as both of those dramas were able to hold both mystery and romantic storylines to excellent ends, with wonderful touches of intimacy along the way (MaxTul couch scene, my beloved). There's more to say, as other people have noted, about writers deprioritizing intimacy to tell "another" story, as it were, but that's a debate for another time, that I think speaks to where Thai BL is going in general.

But otherwise, while I think SMYM was ultimately narratively unsuccessful (that last "I love you" and the rushed close were just brutal), I'm not surprised about how well it did in Thailand. No one can argue with the star power that Tor and JJ hold in Asia — the show was always going to do well, no matter the artistic success of its narrative. I just wish the show had lived up to the caliber of acting and writing that Tor and JJ got to display in that attic at the end.

[monakisu]

I'm pretty sure Joker being like Sleeping Beauty in Royal was intentional. After all, third semester in general has a fairytale theme, with Sumire being Cinderella and Maruki being the Fairy Godmother that grants her (and everyone else's) wishes. But he's also Maleficent, because he puts Sleeping Beauty (Joker) to sleep. Hence Maruki viewing himself as the good guy but also being the bad guy. He gives Sleeping Beauty his Prince Charming (Akechi) in order to convince him to stay within the dream of the false reality, but fails to realize what Prince Charming's goal is in every telling of the story. To wake Sleeping Beauty. Hence, Akechi being the most against the fake reality and being the one to convince Joker not to stay in the reality. By failing to admit his role as the villain, Maruki brings about his own demise in the form of Akechi. It's so well done I can't imagine it being anything but intentional. I mean, Joker even walks with Akechi, "once upon a dream" if one considers the fake reality akin to a dream.

^^^ YEAH!!!!!! YOU GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🧨💥🧨💥🧨💥

i find the irony of goro and maruki’s varying self-awareness levels to be RESPLENDENT!! like here we have goro who has always desperately yearned to be the hero and yet he’s resigned himself to playing the role of villain, the big bad wolf killing mothers and fathers and plotting against the righteous thieves… but come third semester he’s the heroic prince charming saving sleeping beauty!!

(although i like my yaoi toxic, i have to admit how perfectly akira and goro click together as two halves of a whole; they intrigue and excite each other, fulfill their savior complexes and desire to be known intimately, bring the best and worst out of each other...) these two freaks are literally this:

anyways i like to daydream that in the euthanasia ending (i enjoy how horrifying and clinical that name is) even after the rest of the world has long forgotten akira, goro, who has always been stubbornly aware and driven by the truth (i mean, both his AOA's talk about the truth; the boy is FIXATED), will eventually make his way up sleeping beauty’s tower to wake up his love…

and then there’s the other part of the irony: maruki who thinks himself to be his new reality’s messiah but is actually the real Big Bad woa!! a classic evil queen, the evil stepmother, coraline’s other mother trying to trap her in her spiderweb… amazing!!! like u said, he’s simultaneously sumi’s fairy godmother and akira’s villainous fairy! everyday i thank the devs for adding third semester bcuz hoo boy did it elevate p5 to the high heavens!!

i’ve always been very fond of the sleeping beauty parallels in p5, but i’d never thought about it thoroughly enough to realize how instrumental goro’s prince charming role is in dismantling malecificent’s curse! thank u for opening my eyes!! i’m literally giddy from glee!!!

[odinsblog]

I know you’ve heard about Harrison Butker by now, and his embarrassment of a commencement speech at Benedictine College. You’ve probably seen the NFL kicker roasted six ways from Sunday for his misogyny, hypocrisy, and regressive nonsense. People have already written about his stupidity, everyone has memed his nonsense, and conservatives have applauded him for advocating for a return to the 1950s. That is exactly what he was doing, unashamedly. Butker delivered countless awful lines, saying, “Things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for degenerate cultural values in media, all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder.” Which is an ugly mix of law and order rhetoric and sexism, a mix that makes no logical sense but scratches a certain itch in the mind of his conservative audience.

I just want to briefly add to the criticism of this Super Bowl winner, who will probably run for office before too long. Specifically, I want to highlight the inane variety of patriarchal bullshit running through his speech, and his apparent approach to the world. Butker and men like him are trying to sell us a load of hot garbage, and get men to be the worst version of themselves. They’re trying to make us see ourselves as victims, and encouraging us to use that false belief as fuel to go out and hurt other people. We can and should reject that directive.

We should reject it for countless reasons, but I think the place to start is to look at this guy telling us we’ve been oppressed by society and so we should stand up and be real men and tell women to be homemakers. He makes four million dollars a year to kick a ball, he’s won the Super Bowl, and he’s still a miserable person pretending to be a victim. All that wealth, all the success, and he’s going to speak at a college to tell young women, “I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.”

As they’re graduating college to go out into the world, he’s telling them to stay home and be mothers. He’s theoretically reached the American dream, and he’s spending his time telling college girls to be “homemakers.”

Oh and in the days since his speech it’s come out that his mom is an accomplished physicist. But nevertheless.

(continue reading)

[ask-a-vetblr]

Hi I’m starting a book set in Australia (I’m an Aussie!) and it’s about Rabies getting loose in Australia but going to be like a sci/fi and horror novel. I thought I’d ask actual vets if you knew what could happen if rabies got loose in Australia?

gettingvetted here.

Our founder and native Aussie, drferox, is on hiatus, so I will give this a go.

Unfortunately for your book, rabies is one of the easiest diseases to control and eradicate, especially on a small scale and especially if you know the animal of origin. Vaccinations literally have to be upwards of 95% effective (at least in the US) in order to become licensed for use, and the immunity derived from rabies vaccines is long lasting at 1-3 years at minimum; it probably lasts longer but official studies to license vaccines for that long have not been done due to expense. Likewise, the vaccines are usually inexpensive compared to other vaccines like Lyme, as you can vaccinate a cat or dog for 3 years for roughly $25 per vaccine. You typically have plenty of time (weeks to months) after a possible exposure to determine if the biting animal is rabid, and even if you never find that out, rabies vaccination will prevent rabies in an exposed individual as long as they themselves are not showing symptoms (aka, there's a handful of known rabies positive animals in the country and you/your dog just got bitten by a kangaroo? get vaccinated, you're going to be fine even if they can't find the kangaroo again). The symptoms are pretty obvious and pretty classic, making the animal easily identifiable even among its peers, and once the stage of being symptomatic has arrived and thus transmission is possible, the animal will die in a handful of days, thus self-limiting the spread. The only "treatment" is humane euthanasia and as wildlife are the usual reservoir of the virus, there isn't much of an uproar when a select few are euthanized for testing or prevention each year. An interesting factoid is that while the US still has rabies, we *only* have wildlife strains present (not canine rabies). So even if a dog gets rabies from another dog, they will still have acquired skunk, bat, or raccoon strains of rabies. This is due to years of regulating that cats, dogs, and ferrets (domesticated carnivores) be vaccinated for rabies and euthanized for biting if unvaccinated until the canine strain was eradicated. Canine rabies is still an issue in countries with lots of feral dogs.

As a vet in the US, it is a MAJOR headache to ship animals from rabies-endemic areas to non-rabies-endemic areas. Even Hawaii is extremely difficult to pull off. Not only do they have to be vaccinated early (usually within 6 months of travel), they also often have to have rabies titers performed within the same time frame or sometimes even closer to the travel date. An extended quarantine period (I seem to recall that it is 6 months in some cases?) is also required prior to entry for countries such as Australia so that even if the rabies vaccination and titers were incorrect or forged and the animal has rabies, they would still show symptoms prior to entry into the country. Also, while unrelated to rabies, Australia requires veterinarians (not animal owners) to personally administer very specific parasite prevention to animals at very specific intervals to prevent certain parasites from entering the country too, so the amount of prep work required for export itself is often long enough such that if the animal had rabies, you would find out before they left the country. The regulations also differ depending on country of origin - countries with less control over their rabies status are either banned from importing animals or face even stricter import regulations. If any of these steps are performed incorrectly or without pristine official evidence of doing so, the animal gets right back on the plane and goes back to its country of origin, or is held in official government quarantine at customs. So it would be quite difficult to get a rabid animal into the country. Humans are a different story of course, so that may be the best way to bring rabies into Australia in your story. However, humans getting rabies is extremely rare, and considering the excellent healthcare in AUS, a human would probably seek care and be diagnosed before they could become insane enough to start biting wildlife (again, the only real scenario I could think of that could feasibly bring rabies to AUS, because if a rabies positive human bit another human or even a dog, you simply vaccinate that human or dog for rabies and they will be fine).

So, let's assume that you got rabies into the country and a handful of wild animals of various species are exposed. We'll even assume that it was a dog that somehow brought it in despite all the red tape designed to make it impossible, and that dog is ownerless or escaped so there is nobody to tell officials what type or how many animals it bit before it died of its symptoms. It would probably take a significant amount of time for anyone to figure out what was going on. Vets who are educated in countries that have endemic rabies are taught that any animal with any neurologic symptoms should be treated as if they have rabies unless they recover. I.e., if a neurologic animal dies without a definitive diagnosis of some other neurologic disease (such as EPM, distemper, etc) and especially if that animal is unvaccinated for rabies, you MUST assume they had rabies and send them for postmortem testing so that any human or animal who was exposed to the potentially rabid animal can be vaccinated if necessary. However, vets who are educated in non-endemic countries are of course aware of the disease, but probably wouldn't have it on their radar for a neurologic animal. It would probably take a few wildlife or pet animal cases being sent for necropsy and testing after sudden neurologic death before rabies was diagnosed, which probably wouldn't happen until a few months to a year after the first case arrived in the country, at the earliest. Then a few things would happen.

First, the owners of the pet animals and the organizations dealing with wildlife would be extensively interviewed to determine location and possibly the species of animal that bit the now-dead-and-necropsied rabid animal. These areas would be surveyed extensively and unfortunately a lot of local wildlife mammals would probably be preventively eradicated especially if positive cases were found in a given species. Import/export of ANY animals from the country would be immediately halted and mandatory vaccination of all owned animals in the country would likely be established and enforced. Travel of humans likely wouldn't be stopped, but rabies vaccination would be added to the list of recommended vaccines for travel to AUS, similar to malaria vaccines in endemic countries. Again, the excellent and affordable healthcare system of AUS (at least compared to the US) would probably lead many or most Australians to be vaccinated for rabies prophylactially, which can cost thousands of dollars in the US and is usually not covered by health insurance. There would probably be a huge push for vaccination of wildlife with rabies vaccines dropped from aircraft, which could be done both within the area that suspected exposed or definitively positive animals have been found, as well as a radius around those areas as prevention. Vets would be mandated to report any neurologic or behaviorally abnormal animal even if rabies wasn't the suspected cause, and unfortunately would likely be forced to euthanize many animals that were not rabid. There is a chance that with these measures, rabies could be eradicated, but it wouldn't be certain, probably ever. Longer term, surveillance measures would be taken (and I don't mean surveillance like the FBI, I mean epidemiologic surveillance such as monitoring cases that pop up and physically checking on and sampling the typical populations of wildlife that carry the disease). Regardless, it would be extremely difficult to cause any kind of fatal epidemic using a standard rabies virus. Ounce of prevention/pound of cure and all that, but Australia currently chooses a pound of prevention.

Definitely an interesting concept for a book, but I would go with a carnivore parvovirus or canine distemper virus that mutates quickly enough that it can't be vaccinated for, and is transmissible from animals to humans. Parvovirus, specifically, is extremely hardy in the environment and is far more contagious than rabies. Without effective vaccines, I'm betting that either distemper or parvo would cause more death than the plague, especially among pediatrics. I'm not familiar with hendravirus given that we don't have it in the US, but to my knowledge that is also a horrific and contagious disease that is already present in AUS.

Hope this helps!