I think LW is grieving his dog, and perhaps, the death of his dog has made him "close the book" on a happy period of his life -- and now, an assessment of the future looks, in comparison, to be harsh with ever diminishing rewards, especially with a known nasty disease looming ahead.

My dog died less than a year after my first child was born. He died in my arms, and I still cry for him, and what he meant in my life, when I was lonely and striving. No dog I've had since has meant as much to me. What's really hard though, is that even though people understand, they really don't give you a lot of permission to grieve. The closest thing I can think of is a miscarriage, where the person feels much more affected by the experience than society is willing to formally validate. You can't take a leave of absence at work because your dog died.

Anyway, I would grieve the loss of the dog and try to work through the emotional and other issues you have raised with a therapist and I would wait to get another dog. This is the biggest mistake I made -- I felt the need to get another dog because my second dog at the time desperately needed the companionship, but it made grieving even harder.

LW, I'm so sorry that life looks so bleak right now. I hope you can regain your balance.

Kudos for LW for seeking help for his abusive behavior. Lots of men won't or simply refuse to see themselves as the problem (instead continuing to blame their partner for unreasonable provocation, instead of themselves for unreasonable responses).

However, I can't be the only person who wonders when, exactly, one can prove that they really are a "former" abuser, who is at little or no risk of abusing in the future.

The ethical thing to do is to tell the current GF, because you don't really know, do you, whether you are a former abuser? She's your first post-marital relationship, and by your own admission your marriage ended at least in part as a result of abuse, so your abuse, while infrequent, must have been enduring. I understand the desire to leave the past in the past, but part of "owning" conduct is accepting its consequences, which might include a lot less trust in you on the part of those who care for you.

Yes, there is some risk -- but imagine what would happen if you don't tell her and she finds out later, from someone else, like your ex-wife?

I appreciate that Ms. Kissling is only seeking incentives to make people willing to donate, and that such donations would be voluntary. I am not worried about the distribution of available organs, because a voluntary donor only increases the supply, which means that, even if you can't afford to pay, you will still benefit by facing less competition for the remaining pool of available organs.

But I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that healthy people should be officially encouraged to give up a major organ that they might very well need, given the future risk to their own kidneys posed by an escalating rate of diabetes in the population at large. I do not think such donations are nearly as cost-free to the donor as Ms. Kissling does (among others), and I resent that people would be guilt-tripped into "doing the right thing." Coming from Ms. Kissling, this seems especially ironic, because I am sure she is well aware of the subtle and sometimes not so subtle pressures that are brought to bear on women, in particular, to demonstrate "altruism" for the good of others, whatever the long term impact may be for them.

I am sorry Ms. Kissling is ill, but there are limits to the kinds of claims that she can make on the healthy. I think this crosses the line.

Maybe doctors are squeamish because they actually see how the informed consent process works. Normally, I would agree that adults should be able to do what they want with their own body parts. I also agree that in the U.S. or other developed nations, a system of compensated kidney donations would likely cause minimal collateral damage, but you would be somewhat crazy to think that the same would be true in other places. What happens if things go wrong in a nation with little safety net and poor public health infrastructure? Unlike surrogacy arrangements, for instance, the donee doesn't really have a stake in the donor's continuing health once the donation is complete.

That's a real problem: someone who is paid is unlikely to be the recipient of corrsponding altruism should, in fact, something go wrong.

In addition, with sperm or egg donation, or even the donation of bone marrow, you are talking about relatively simple outpatient procedures involving parts that are, essentially, renewable, where donation is not irrevocable and is not major surgery.

I simply think you are underestimating how hard it is to get truly informed consent, and the possibility of major adverse consequences, once paid donation becomes common.