Even if her death is guaranteed by leaving it in (and I'm not sure it is without more information), does that make it ethical to remove? Perhaps the patient would prefer a shorter life with greater quality in regards to her seizures. After all, don't we allow and accept cancer patients to forgo treatment and enjoy the time they have left?

I'm guessing the patients were required beforehand to sign forms consenting to the device being taken out in the event of ___________ (in this case, the company going under). Because otherwise I don't understand how it'd be legal to force someone to have brain surgery against their will.

But if the company can't continue maintenance and support for the device, why not have her sign new forms exempting them from liability and just let her keep it? Is potential liability not the only limiting factor here? And would this be ethical?

I bought Dunkin's pumpkin spice ground coffee a month ago when I saw it in the store. I don't care that it's 106°F outside, I fuckin love pumpkin spice.

They are both equally important. However, we tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior. Considering this, I think it's important to continually try and understand the intentions of others, and consider how our actions might be interpreted by others.

Hmm, that's not how they work in my state. You either pay 100% of the bail yourself, or you pay 10% to a bondsman and they cover the other 90%.

Does anyone know why he used a bail bond company? Seems weird. Does he really not have the $200,000?

Horny?

Oh, I had no idea. Thank you.

I have a tickle phobia. My incredibly abusive ex boyfriend used it as a method of torture. It's surprisingly effective. He would sit on top of me so I couldn't escape and keep going and going. I just remember not being able to breathe and blind panic.

So yeah. Not a fan. Makes me have panic attacks.

Seriously, the amount of times I've had someone I don't know ask for a hit of my dab pen is insane.

On one hand, low rise jeans were a result of the beauty ideal at the time being "heroin chic," which was undoubtedly harmful and caused many to develop eating disorders.

On the other hand, high waisted jeans are a result of the beauty ideal now being Kim Kardashian, which is still harmful (ask all the women out there with botched Brazilian butt lifts), not the least because the Kardashians lie about their bodies being natural so they can shill useless products.

Although having a small waist is still ideal, I'm glad the window has shifted back from the time when celebrities were slammed in every magazine as fat for looking like this.