Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics
View Poll Results: If faced with being both blind and deaf, would you opt for euthanasia?
No, I would want to live no matter what 27 42.86%
Yes, it's time to check out 36 57.14%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02.12.2016, 14:36
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In a better place
Posts: 1,682
Groaned at 10 Times in 9 Posts
Thanked 2,120 Times in 823 Posts
EastEnders has a reputation beyond reputeEastEnders has a reputation beyond reputeEastEnders has a reputation beyond reputeEastEnders has a reputation beyond reputeEastEnders has a reputation beyond reputeEastEnders has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
I would suggest joining now. It's like the mieterverband: these types of organisations are best joined before you need them

Not necessarily necessary...there are other means ......
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02.12.2016, 15:18
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Misery-Courtion
Posts: 17,858
Groaned at 300 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 13,141 Times in 7,532 Posts
Medea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
Jesus, no offence Medea but the moment you start saying "should all smokers be sanctioned?" then I know we are operating on slightly different levels of rationality here. Lets just agree to disagree.
I'm merely pointing out that an addiction doesn't necessarily equate to mental health.

Yes, the person we're talking about suffered from depression and yet none of the psychologists, etc, thought it was bad enough to sanction him it seems. So was this a failing on the medical side or was he a good enough actor to fool them into thinking he was cured before going on another drinking binge? He also had to get approval from a doctor at the euthanasian board who could also possibly have sanctioned him instead if the law allowed.

It's all about options - whether you have the option to keep trying or the option to say enough is enough. I want both options to be available should I ever need them.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02.12.2016, 15:34
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 378
Groaned at 20 Times in 19 Posts
Thanked 405 Times in 238 Posts
Dark Blue is considered knowledgeableDark Blue is considered knowledgeableDark Blue is considered knowledgeable
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

I would take the way out.

If I were blind, I would still hear my loved ones laughing,listen to the radio,etc. Still connected to the social life.

If I were deaf, I would see people laughing,watch the news,etc. Again still connected to the world.

But going blind and deaf is a completely different thing and no, nobody else has any say in it other than me; not the state,not the family and especially not the people who are not going through the same situation I would be in.

Last edited by Dark Blue; 02.12.2016 at 16:09.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Dark Blue for this useful post:
  #104  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:00
xynth's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Zurich
Posts: 823
Groaned at 37 Times in 24 Posts
Thanked 1,951 Times in 564 Posts
xynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

I fully support the individual's right to decide what to do with their life.

There is this strange dichotomy where we in the western world like to imagine that we live in freedom, but I fail to see a more basic form of freedom than the freedom of choice over one's life. Take that away, and everything else is just fluff. What does a person really own in this world, if not their own life? If the state decides what one can do with their life, the individual doesn't own their life anymore. It is owned by bureaucrats and armchair moralists.

We can try to rationalise why it is good to restrict an adult person's control over their own existence, but I find they all end up in two ultimate groups: religious or utilitarian.

The former is just b*llocks and really grinds my gears because I don't do well with people forcing their mystic views on others. Nevermind that it shuts down any rational discussion "because the bearded hippie in the sky said so".

The latter (utilitarian) reasoning often hides behind a veil of moral slush, but ultimately I have not yet seen a single case where it didn't boil down to something like "it's considered a great shame to throw your life away if it can still be turned happy and productive if you try more". Happy is as subjective as it gets, so let's drop that right away. Being productive is purely utilitarian. Besides, why is it a shame. A shame for whom? Who is doing the considering?

As others have said, desperate individuals will find a way to off themselves. Often this will be messy (doubly so for the surviving relatives, the deceased hardly cares anymore), sometimes even painful and rarely a comfortable experience.

Our society demonises death so much, we refuse to accept that it is everywhere around us. Should we not try to make it as comfortable an event as possible? I'm sure we would all like it if our death was not a violent and terrifying event, but rather a comfortable and relaxed event that, while one usually does not look forward to, at least they don't have to fear it.

In the movies, the concept of a tear-inducing but ultimately beautiful death is the one where the person calmly passes away. Like falling asleep one last time while the consciousness dissolves in light and peace.

Should we not enable people to do exactly that, instead of jumping off bridges or covering the backwall with their brain?
Reply With Quote
The following 10 users would like to thank xynth for this useful post:
  #105  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:18
manwithnoname's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 472
Groaned at 66 Times in 46 Posts
Thanked 1,209 Times in 484 Posts
manwithnoname has a reputation beyond reputemanwithnoname has a reputation beyond reputemanwithnoname has a reputation beyond reputemanwithnoname has a reputation beyond reputemanwithnoname has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

pro choice (abortion / euthanasia)
pro life (anti abortion / anti euthanasia)

can you be for abortion and anti euthanasia at the same time? is there even a difference?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:20
Castro's Avatar
à la mod
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Basel-Land of Smiles
Posts: 5,107
Groaned at 104 Times in 84 Posts
Thanked 14,629 Times in 4,713 Posts
Castro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

The NHS has a very good page on the subject of Euthanasia. Two 'non-religious' arguments which are explained far better than I am able to are:

‘Slippery slope’ argument
The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed that should never have been crossed, and a dangerous precedent has been set.
The concern is that a society that allows voluntary euthanasia will gradually change its attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia.
Legalised voluntary euthanasia could eventually lead to a wide range of unforeseen consequences, such as the following:
  • Very ill people who need constant care, or people with severe disabilities, may feel pressured to request euthanasia so that they are not a burden to their family.
  • Legalising euthanasia may discourage research into palliative treatments, and possibly prevent cures for people with terminal illnesses being found.
  • Occasionally, doctors may be mistaken about a person’s diagnosis and outlook, and the person may choose euthanasia after being wrongly told that they have a terminal condition.
Medical ethics argument
The medical ethics argument, which is similar to the "slippery slope" argument, states that legalising euthanasia would violate one of the most important medical ethics, which, in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, is: "A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life".
Asking doctors to abandon their obligation to preserve human life could damage the doctor-patient relationship. Hastening death on a regular basis could become a routine administrative task for doctors, leading to a lack of compassion when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people.
In turn, people with complex health needs or severe disabilities could become distrustful of their doctor’s efforts and intentions. They may think that their doctor would rather "kill them off" than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:27
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 378
Groaned at 20 Times in 19 Posts
Thanked 405 Times in 238 Posts
Dark Blue is considered knowledgeableDark Blue is considered knowledgeableDark Blue is considered knowledgeable
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
The NHS has a very good page on the subject of Euthanasia. Two 'non-religious' arguments which are explained far better than I am able to are:

‘Slippery slope’ argument
The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed that should never have been crossed, and a dangerous precedent has been set.
The concern is that a society that allows voluntary euthanasia will gradually change its attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia.
Legalised voluntary euthanasia could eventually lead to a wide range of unforeseen consequences, such as the following:
  • Very ill people who need constant care, or people with severe disabilities, may feel pressured to request euthanasia so that they are not a burden to their family.
  • Legalising euthanasia may discourage research into palliative treatments, and possibly prevent cures for people with terminal illnesses being found.
  • Occasionally, doctors may be mistaken about a person’s diagnosis and outlook, and the person may choose euthanasia after being wrongly told that they have a terminal condition.
Medical ethics argument
The medical ethics argument, which is similar to the "slippery slope" argument, states that legalising euthanasia would violate one of the most important medical ethics, which, in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, is: "A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life".
Asking doctors to abandon their obligation to preserve human life could damage the doctor-patient relationship. Hastening death on a regular basis could become a routine administrative task for doctors, leading to a lack of compassion when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people.
In turn, people with complex health needs or severe disabilities could become distrustful of their doctor’s efforts and intentions. They may think that their doctor would rather "kill them off" than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case.
There is a very fundamental false assumption with both of the arguments; it is not the doctor who is making the decision but the person him/herself.

The doctor's role is just merely helping it to be painful and quick which is in fact their obligation of respecting human life.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Dark Blue for this useful post:
  #108  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:32
Castro's Avatar
à la mod
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Basel-Land of Smiles
Posts: 5,107
Groaned at 104 Times in 84 Posts
Thanked 14,629 Times in 4,713 Posts
Castro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
There is a very fundamental false assumption with both of the arguments; it is not the doctor who is making the decision but the person him/herself.

The doctor's role is just merely helping it to be painful and quick which is in fact their obligation of respecting human life.
I would read it again then, because that is not what it says.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:37
Dark Blue's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Thalwil
Posts: 378
Groaned at 20 Times in 19 Posts
Thanked 405 Times in 238 Posts
Dark Blue is considered knowledgeableDark Blue is considered knowledgeableDark Blue is considered knowledgeable
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
I would read it again then, because that is not what it says.
That is what I understand from this sentence: " The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed that should never have been crossed, and a dangerous precedent has been set."
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:41
adrianlondon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 9,200
Groaned at 193 Times in 176 Posts
Thanked 25,643 Times in 6,892 Posts
adrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

The NHS already kills citizens. It respects "do not resuscitate" instructions (as part of something called an "Advanced Decisions to Refuse Treatment").
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank adrianlondon for this useful post:
  #111  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:47
bigblue2's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Glarus
Posts: 6,839
Groaned at 334 Times in 273 Posts
Thanked 11,292 Times in 4,546 Posts
bigblue2 has a reputation beyond reputebigblue2 has a reputation beyond reputebigblue2 has a reputation beyond reputebigblue2 has a reputation beyond reputebigblue2 has a reputation beyond reputebigblue2 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
The NHS already kills citizens. It respects "do not resuscitate" instructions (as part of something called an "Advanced Decisions to Refuse Treatment").
and they also stick those on people who haven't asked for it
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:49
nigelr's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Aargau
Posts: 1,642
Groaned at 118 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 2,007 Times in 900 Posts
nigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond repute
The NHS also has an "end of life" process which is kicked in when they feel the patient will not ever recover even if the patient wants to live.

Quote:
View Post
and they also stick those on people who haven't asked for it
I don't know about that but I know the other way when they resuscitated my father even though he had a DNR and was already in the hospital (so they knew about it).

Personally, I want to live for ever. I really do. I am fascinated by what comes next BUT if I was blind and deaf then I would say it was time to go. For me personally I don't think I could have any quality of life if I was deaf and blind.

Last edited by 3Wishes; 02.12.2016 at 18:03. Reason: merging consecutive replies; please use multi-quote (to the right of quote)
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank nigelr for this useful post:
  #113  
Old 02.12.2016, 17:56
Castro's Avatar
à la mod
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Basel-Land of Smiles
Posts: 5,107
Groaned at 104 Times in 84 Posts
Thanked 14,629 Times in 4,713 Posts
Castro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
The NHS already kills citizens. It respects "do not resuscitate" instructions (as part of something called an "Advanced Decisions to Refuse Treatment").
Quote:
View Post
The NHS also has an "end of life" process which is kicked in when they feel the patient will not ever recover even if the patient wants to live.
There is a massive difference between this and helping an alcoholic end their life. In the case of a patient who is in pain, on their deathbed, I would see it as an act of compassion for the physician to increase the dose of morphine to help them on their way. Of course if the patient or their family do not want that, then that too should be respected.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02.12.2016, 18:00
xynth's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Zurich
Posts: 823
Groaned at 37 Times in 24 Posts
Thanked 1,951 Times in 564 Posts
xynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond reputexynth has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
‘Slippery slope’ argument
The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed that should never have been crossed, and a dangerous precedent has been set.
The concern is that a society that allows voluntary euthanasia will gradually change its attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia.
This seems like a valid concern but it is framed disingenuously and it seems like whoever wrote it had a case to make. Why? Because they make it sound like the government is doing the killing. This is not the case. Then you can just as well blame the knife or gun for killing the murder victim. They were utility to the act, but the act could've happened without them too (just as easily, but perhaps less pleasantly).

Quote:
View Post
Very ill people who need constant care, or people with severe disabilities, may feel pressured to request euthanasia so that they are not a burden to their family.
This is a valid concern, but this is always a valid concern. Making suicide less of a stressful option will just mean that everyone can consider their options in a level headed fashion.

Quote:
View Post
Legalising euthanasia may discourage research into palliative treatments, and possibly prevent cures for people with terminal illnesses being found.
I found this argument particularly inane, because given the choice of not having a debilitating disease versus having the disease but then being able to end their life early, I believe pretty much everyone will choose the first option. Pretty much every human being who lives a fulfilling, happy and pain free life wants to continue living. Some accept old age and death as inevitability, but there are many more who would be happy to go on living given that their quality of life will not degrade.

Quote:
View Post
Occasionally, doctors may be mistaken about a person’s diagnosis and outlook, and the person may choose euthanasia after being wrongly told that they have a terminal condition.
I believe that hardly anyone kill themselves at the drop of the hat when they discover that they have a terminal disease. It is usually a long and painful process, where the disease is discovered, the prognosis is not good, but pretty much everyone will first try at least a couple of options. The point is that there is a lead-up. Doctors are loathe to pronounce a case as "lost" to begin with because they know how much value hope has. Telling a person that they have terminal cancer that will kill them in an agonising and painful process within 3 months is a death sentence, whether there was a slim chance of survival or not.

Quote:
View Post
Medical ethics argument
Hastening death on a regular basis could become a routine administrative task for doctors, leading to a lack of compassion when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people.
Doctors already have to distance themselves to some degree, which is why many of them can seem cold or even uncaring. Besides, as I mentioned before, the doctors themselves would not be doing any of the deed or the hastening. It is down to the individual themselves.

Quote:
View Post
Medical ethics argument
In turn, people with complex health needs or severe disabilities could become distrustful of their doctor’s efforts and intentions. They may think that their doctor would rather "kill them off" than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case.
Again, this is not a concern that is new with euthanasia. An unscrupulous doctor will conveniently kill off their patients by just not bothering with the treatment and putting the patient under palliative care. In the end, when people are high as a kite on morphine, they don't complain. At the same time, their terminal condition will kill them off anyway.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank xynth for this useful post:
  #115  
Old 02.12.2016, 18:01
nigelr's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Aargau
Posts: 1,642
Groaned at 118 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 2,007 Times in 900 Posts
nigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
There is a massive difference between this and helping an alcoholic end their life. In the case of a patient who is in pain, on their deathbed, I would see it as an act of compassion for the physician to increase the dose of morphine to help them on their way. Of course if the patient or their family do not want that, then that too should be respected.
Of course, and I fully agree with you, but in the case where the patient (it is never up to the family) doesn't agree then the doctors can, and do, make the decision to start the process.

I made the point just to be clear that the NHS (UK Government) don't just sit and wait for you to die of natural causes.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02.12.2016, 18:04
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 5,149
Groaned at 160 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,565 Times in 3,370 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
There is this strange dichotomy where we in the western world like to imagine that we live in freedom, but I fail to see a more basic form of freedom than the freedom of choice over one's life. Take that away, and everything else is just fluff. What does a person really own in this world, if not their own life? If the state decides what one can do with their life, the individual doesn't own their life anymore. It is owned by bureaucrats and armchair moralists.
But that's not the point, isn't it? The question is whether the state is obliged to provide the means and personnel, i.e. actively kill the person.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02.12.2016, 18:08
nigelr's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Aargau
Posts: 1,642
Groaned at 118 Times in 59 Posts
Thanked 2,007 Times in 900 Posts
nigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond reputenigelr has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
But that's not the point, isn't it? The question is whether the state is obliged to provide the means and personnel, i.e. actively kill the person.
The state doesn't need to provide any personnel, it just needs to pass a law that allows it.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank nigelr for this useful post:
  #118  
Old 02.12.2016, 18:26
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 5,149
Groaned at 160 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 6,565 Times in 3,370 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
The state doesn't need to provide any personnel, it just needs to pass a law that allows it.
That may be an alternative but seems not to be the situation at hand.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02.12.2016, 18:28
manwithnoname's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 472
Groaned at 66 Times in 46 Posts
Thanked 1,209 Times in 484 Posts
manwithnoname has a reputation beyond reputemanwithnoname has a reputation beyond reputemanwithnoname has a reputation beyond reputemanwithnoname has a reputation beyond reputemanwithnoname has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

suggestion: we allow euthanasia under the condition that you donate your healthy organs.

triple win because 1) patient wish, 2) organ receiver extended life (quality) and 3) ethics/morals eased for doctors because kill one, save many.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank manwithnoname for this useful post:
  #120  
Old 02.12.2016, 18:38
Castro's Avatar
à la mod
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Basel-Land of Smiles
Posts: 5,107
Groaned at 104 Times in 84 Posts
Thanked 14,629 Times in 4,713 Posts
Castro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond reputeCastro has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Would you choose euthanasia over deaf & blindness?

Quote:
View Post
suggestion: we allow euthanasia under the condition that you donate your healthy organs.

triple win because 1) patient wish, 2) organ receiver extended life (quality) and 3) ethics/morals eased for doctors because kill one, save many.
A parallel example is China where organs are harvested from executed prisoners, and that has already been subject to abuse.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How would you choose to be paid? M. Ploymi Finance/banking/taxation 21 17.01.2013 12:42
Would you start all over again in the other side of Switzerland? jttraveller Daily life 14 18.12.2011 16:45
If you would win 20 million CHF in the lottery, would you stay in Switzerland desperate Finance/banking/taxation 52 03.10.2011 14:23
Between city & airport - where would you go? kev132 Housing in general 3 19.05.2011 10:02
Distinguishing colors/Color blindness chemgoddess General off-topic 13 04.01.2008 01:11


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 18:22.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0