truth-is-the-nemesis says... @enoch, It is definitely immoral as described earlier. However you raised some good points such as the varying levels or degrees of immortality. The example you gave of a woman struggling to feed her children & herself who will do anything to survive raises the age old question i.e. if a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is it still stealing?. & this is a very grey issue to delve into accurately. Obviously there are multiple avenues here that any respective journalist worth their weight in salt should have considered such as to the 'why' of this, not just the 'how'. Are these disabled individuals undervalued, out-of-luck, battlers seeking restitution simply to survive in society, or is it simply greed & their 'disability' is manufactured to make a profit?. Obviously, for the payers it is simply to get an advantage that the general public are denied. However, deciphering the payees motives are far more complex & the reporters really should have focused more on the users, as they have set-up the client base for this system of dishonestly to thrive whereas the guides are merely the pawns, as one parent of the 1% 'as she described herself' commented on social networking after utilising these services commented 'This is how the 1% live' & nothing was done to confront her.