Just What Is Going On?

Just What Is Going On?

Could you please answer me? What the fuck is happening? Did I miss the memo? You know, the one saying we, society as whole, are becoming more united, and caring toward our brothers and sisters, regardless of age or status. I see it mentioned constantly in headlines, newscasts and otherwise, but something really, really left me with a funny taste in my mouth on the afternoon of Friday September 25, 2015.

It must have been wallet day, because I found a lost wallet. I found who owned it straightaway, but they were not answering the door, so I went about my business, and bought some cheap-ass headphones from the Future Shop. Checked to see if No Frills had those six dollar bags of chicken, and bought some toothpaste from Wal-Mart.

At the bus stop, an older woman – by older I mean she was obviously retired, was scrimmaging around the grass and garbage bins where I was sitting – waiting for the loser cruiser, and I had to ask, “What’s the problem?” I had a few bucks in my pocket and thought she might be looking for bottles, but no, she was looking for her wallet that she JUST lost. She noticed it missing pretty much immediately, and not five minutes had passed when she back in the store where she was, and now in front of me.

What her answer was really bugged me. She replied, “I lost my wallet, and I was just hoping that somebody had just taken the money out and chucked it. You know, in the grass or the garbage or something. I was just hoping to get the stuff back. But, I guess somebody picked it up and kept it between the til and my car.” She had lost it that fast.

What got me was what she was defaulted to. She was hoping that whoever found it, just kept the money and chucked it. Not, hoping it was handed in at the store, or somebody might have seen her drop it, but took the money, and left her the wallet.

Now, I had a wallet in my possession, and I decided to look through it. There was no money, but, obviously, this guy’s world would have ground to a slow crawl because it fell away from him.

I had to ask myself, ‘What if there was money in it? What would I have done with said money? Would I have kept it? I have found wallets before – with money – and just returned them, but what would I have done with money, if it had been any sizable amount? Say, a quarter of my disability cheque, or maybe a third? It would have altered any short-term plans I have, and it definitely would have changed one long-term goal – that of getting my crap out of the pawnshop.

I got home eventually, made a coffee and called the guy from the number I grabbed off his business card. It was his business card because the name was the same one on all his identification. He was in a panic for a couple hours already, and was very glad I called. When I called, I asked, “Is this Chris?” he had the longest weird name I have ever seen. Phonetically, it sounded out ‘Do-ya-weird’. I wasn’t going to say it. I said, “is this Chris? I got your wallet.” He laughed because I said it really menacingly like I was going to post its video on Al Jazeera. He sighed relief, and we agreed to meet at his place in a half hour.

What I found out was I wouldn’t have kept his money, because he said that it was too bad that there wasn’t any money in it, and I replied that it wouldn’t have mattered – I didn’t even think of my response. I was on Zen-method-of-navigation all day, and his money wouldn’t have changed that. I also found out that he owned a recording studio. Bonus on my part – he lived two blocks away from me. And, icing on my cupcake, he gave me twenty bucks for my time. The whole half of the day was like Homer Simpson when he became a member of the national Rifle Club, and was thinking what it would be like to rob Apu. By the time he was going to do it, he was already in his car eating a sandwich. “Maybe next time.”

I’m still gonna take those cheap-ass headphones back to Future Shop, but the Lady losing her wallet was still bothering my psyche…

People lose stuff every day and she was no different than the rest of them, in most respects except one; I am pretty certain that she has lived through a time when she didn’t default to an assumed baser instinct of ‘finders keepers, losers weepers’, and she would have given someone a reward as well for the safe return of her property.

She would have paid for somebody to do the right thing? Doing the right thing isn't normal, the default anymore? It just bugged the hell outta me.

You Are Not Alone - Depression in Acceptable Mouthfuls

You Are Not Alone

Life is not fair. Life is not a Dream. Life is not a Fantasy. It is Subjective & Unjustified. Why is one person doing so well & one failing to the point of Suicide, or why are you doing so well, while someone who is sharing this planet with you wants to “check-out”; to find out if God really exists?

What life (I have found), is beautiful in its simplicity, and I figure that the reason for the incredible success in Social Media is the simplicity that at any time, you or anyone else can “go online” and find out that you are not alone.

Depression is a very misunderstood illness. I don’t understand it, any more than you, and I’ve had it for a quarter of a century; been hospitalized more times than I can honestly remember. I have been that guy with drug addictions and the alcohol abuse, but it’s an easy thing to lie in bed and say “no more”. The hard part is getting out of the bed and just doing. But!!! & this is the big thing… You do not have to prove anything to anybody but yourself, and you do not have to do one God-damn thing that you don’t want to – EVER! But you have the responsibility to do one thing absolutely, and that is accepting the fact that you have it.

Depression Broken Into Acceptable Pieces

Ø  Introduction

Ø  Recognizing Symptoms

Ø  Forms of Depression

Ø  Assessing Male-Specific Depression

Ø  Treatment for Depression

Ø  Conclusion

Introduction

     We all feel a little sad sometimes, but in true Orwellian fashion, some of us become sadder than others. Sadness is relative in perspective, just as a religious practice, or a social practice has to be accepted across cultures, so do we have to consider cross-social definitions and boundaries when it comes to an illness such as depression. The following is an analysis and summary of three sources that I have researched, and attempted to make understandable to the layman, but there is some terminology and data that, without destroying its impact, could not have been “dumbed-down”.

  

Recognizing Symptoms

     As a person who has had to live with depression for virtually his entire adult life, recognizing the symptoms of depression is still a formidable task at the best of times. In Wendy Moragne’s book, Depression (p 30-31) she explains – and I have to concur – that there are nine generally accepted signs for recognizing depression:

1.      Feelings of frustration, irritability, sadness, or anger.

2.       Loss of interest in activities that were once enjoyable.

3.      Significant increases or decreases in appetite and weight.

4.      Insomnia and/or sleeping too much.

5.      Restlessness, fidgeting, or experiencing slowed movements.

6.      Feeling tired and lacking in energy.

7.      Feeling worthless or guilty.

8.      Having difficulty thinking, concentrating, or decision-making.

9.      Having repeated thoughts of death or suicide.

 Symptoms Lasting Two Weeks or Longer

% Of Men Reporting (n=8311)

% Of Women Reporting (n=10,971)

Dysphoria

23.50

35.70

Thoughts of Death

22.80

33.00

Changes in Appetite

18.80

28.50

Changes in Sleep Habits

18.30

27.00

Fatigue

11.60

19.90

Diminished Concentration

10.80

16.70

Guilt

8.60

12.30

Psychomotor Dysfunction

7.90

10.20

Loss of Interest

3.40

6.80

Forms of Depression

     When a person is diagnosed with depression, it is important to correctly identify the type of depression that the person has. In Moragne’s book Depression (p 27-28), there are several forms of depression discussed, and each one appears to have its own level of severity. It is now that I would like to point out that when a person is depressed, the only thing that is foremost on their mind is getting better. Therefore, I should say that there really are not any levels of seriousness from one person’s illness to another’s, as each case is unique and requires its own form of diagnosis and treatment.

These are the recognized forms of depression:

1.      Major Depression – includes the symptoms mentioned above. These symptoms interfere with everyday functioning.

2.      Dysthymia – is a milder form of depression that can last a very long time, sometimes even years. Some young people who suffer Dysthymia go on to develop major depression or Bipolar Disorder.

3.      Bipolar Disorder – is a disorder where patients experience mood swings. These alternate from moments of sheer elation to points of major depression.

4.      Atypical Depression – is associated with people who are generally extremely sensitive to rejection. Symptoms also tend to be chronic in nature.

5.      Seasonal Affective Disorder – seems to be related to seasonal changes, as well as changes in levels of sunlight.

A diagnosis of depression is not a death sentence, if it is properly diagnosed – IN TIME. In a recent study, life-long symptoms of reported depression ran the gamut of the symptoms mentioned earlier in section two – Recognizing Symptoms. Below summarizes these symptoms:

·         Symptoms Lasting Two Weeks or Longer

·         Dysphoria

·         Thoughts of Death

·         Changes in Appetite

·         Changes in Sleep Habits

·         Fatigue

·         Diminished Concentration

·         Guilt

·         Psychomotor Dysfunction

·         Loss of Interest

     Males are more likely than Females, not to report their feelings of depression to clinicians. However, the specific symptoms that were most frequently reported were the same for men and women. So, if the depression is reported, and subsequently diagnosed, it can be treated, but what methods are currently available?

Treatment for Depression

     Depression has often been linked with an array of biological factors. These scientifically concluded assumptions have been reached because of the recent advances in the treatment of depression with newer, more effective anti-depressants. These recent advances in include relatively fewer side effects, as compared to the multiple side-effects that patients experienced as recent as ten years ago. Medical treatment of men through anti-depressants has shown that it is men who experience, and present the most complaints of side effects.

Conclusion

     There is significance to the sources used in this paper. Finding suitable printed material and legitimate information on the Internet is analogous to finding that one doctor with whom you quite literally put the health of your mind in their hands. These are the most up-to-date, and from my perspective, reliable sources that are available, but the science and treatment of depression is always advancing, and there is always a wealth of information on this very treatable, and most hopefully, socially acceptable, illness.

Remember!!! You need to find the Professional that YOU are comfortable with…

This Thing Named Mercy

This Thing Named Mercy

Spring 2016 – Euthanasia has been legalized for 18 months

Lydia was always an image of joy, and had such an influence on others around her that everyone must have, at one time or another, secretly said to themselves “What a beautiful, adorable young girl”. As her doctor, I felt unique and special bond with Lydia because I was one of the few people who had the good fortune of being there from the very beginning of her life – her life and her death – her eleventh birthday. I also knew the truth that her parents continually ignored – Lydia would never get better, or recover. She was going to die like she was – Bill and Jan’s little baby.

Bill and Jan loved their daughter more than their own lives – this was never the question – it was love unyielding, unrelenting, and without compromise. Nevertheless, the pressure that is always associated with the handle and care of a very ill loved-one was taking a heavy toll on the couple, and they were finding themselves in argument more and more as the days and time went on and past. The days passed relentlessly without mercy for these two people, and after 10 years of marriage, the end of their union was visibly, and fast, approaching – but, not if Jan could have a say in the matter.

The two were becoming increasingly overburdened, and increasingly non-responsive to each other, which had lately started to take on form as sympathetic arguments between Bill and Jan – on behalf of Lydia of course. Bill began to talk of removing Lydia from life-support... "... for the sake of Lydia", was how he would begin making his case. Each time Bill started, Jan knew that he secretly desired to stop the torment of the daily hospital visit where he felt his instinctive fatherly omnipotence sanguinely strangled from him – one tiny 6-year old breath, by one tiny 6-year old breath. For Jan it was simple, she would want whatever her husband wanted – she was focusing on trying to save their marriage – they could have another child, nevertheless, she would always create a new and better argument for keeping Lydia on life-support. It is the nature of Jan-the-giver-and-provider of life to abandon nihilism, and embrace undying hope – the hope that life will remain where there still beats a heart.

Lydia was literally a shadow now. She lay in her hospital bed each day slowly being disintegrated by the cancer that ran through her little frame, but the cancer was being denied the satisfaction of the pain it creates by the drugs running through Lydia’s little body just as fast.

At times, during Bill’s visits to Lydia, he would start suddenly from a light dream state – he nodded off often beside Lydia’s bed. But, these lapses of consciousness led to lapses of reason where the day-mares would most times be about somebody entering Lydia’s room and taking her away from him and Jan. These day-mares made Bill feel as though at any moment a nurse could come in and by simply opening the curtain to shed light, it would be that very light that would make Lydia vanish into oblivion. It would be here that Bill would get up, go to the main floor cafeteria, and buy two or three cups of coffee-to-go.

Several weeks more pass.

It was a beautiful mid-May Sunday morning. The bees had taken the morning off because of the rain that had fallen overnight. The air smelled of jasmine, hyacinths, and lilacs, and I could not think of anything else but little Lydia. I left my downtown ground-floor apartment around 1:30PM, but I had not decided if I would be going to the Children’s Hospital as of yet. My actions would soon dispute and disprove that false assumption.

I had spent most of my day in the stupor and the cloud of my discomforting daydreams. I found myself at the nurse’s station at the hospital about 6:00 PM – a "little" past the supper hour. I had unconsciously made the trek on foot – walking around downtown Toronto’s Younge Street for several hours in an unobstructed and uninterrupted daze. I eventually found myself standing at the front of the downtown International hostel – a big building, a tall building, and then recalled that I was only a block or so away from the Children’s Hospital. I made my way there.

The nurse on duty was polite in that subtle Caribbean way. I commented on her perfume and smile, and then I asked her to please refrain from any interruptions because I was going in to see Lydia Denier and I did not want to be disturbed. She, the nurse, complied with a nod saying, “Yes Karen,” and then showed off her lovely bright disarming smile, but the nod and the smile were both without thought of any kind, and behind her bright glassy eyes was the standoffish manner most nurses take when addressing most doctors, including myself. We are two different pedigrees, but inexorably intertwined because of our positions.

When I entered the room, Lydia looked as peaceful, and as quiet as ever. Her bed faced the window, and the light was at such a level that it caused me to reflect on how focused Lydia’s little face appeared. Her eyes blinked fast, and I pictured her somewhere far away, and this brought to my mind a song by the Irish rock group U2 called Kite, and the particular line, “who’s to say where the wind will take you.”

I reached into my coat and took it out. I tapped it twice and stuck it into Lydia’s intravenous tube, and after the syringe emptied into the tube, I stared at this little girl’s frail arm, and I waited. I watched and waited a lifetime lasting 20 seconds then I knew she was dead.

I did not think at that moment I had a choice, or would I allow myself any chance to ponder the little girl’s fate. I as a doctor, who has been granted the ability to save lives, can also assume that I can also be responsible, and, ethical enough, to make the decision as to when enough is enough.

This… this act of mercy eloquently named Euthanasia, cannot be defined with animal logic, or by non-secular terms, but it could only be treated as it ought to be treated – objectively, and without bias. Nevertheless, Lydia’s face is the last thing I see before I fall asleep, and it is the first thing I see when I awake, but I am able to live with what I have done – there is no sense of wrong or sin.

Is It Ethical To Kill To Save Others?

Philosophical Questions: Is It Ethical To Kill To Save Others?

Philosophical & Personal Debate

Personal Preservation

To save your own life or the life of your family – family measurable in that specific degree that they have a very personal influence on you and in your life. Yes, there would be no issue.

Assassination

I believe it is ethical to kill those who oppress, exploit, and cause suffering to others. Politicians, leaders of the World Trade Court, and some high ranking members of corporations deserve this kind of punishment. It is in the best interest of the common people to inform themselves of the issues in the world today and act upon those issues in an extreme manner to protect themselves and others. I highly recommend researching corporations such as Monsanto for a start.

Taking one person's life to

Taking one person's life to save 100 others is logical, but emotions might keep us from otherwise making this decision. The further we can keep emotion from these decisions the better. Say the person you were going to kill was some random guy you don't know, and all you would have to do is press a button to kill him/her. This would be a whole lot easier if this person was, say your brother, mother, son, etc, and you would have to strangle them. The second situation involves a huge amount of emotion with most people that would otherwise keep them from making the logical choice.

I'm not saying emotions are bad, they just have their downsides. If it wasn't for emotions we'd be cold hard machines. Emotions are human (animals too) characteristics, and like all human characteristics, they have equal ups and equal downs.

But would it be ethical? Well keeping 100 mothers from crying is more ethical than keeping just 1 mother from crying. Not saving these lives because (in simple terms) "you don't have the balls" to make the necessary decision is selfish. You do not want to get your hands dirty, you do not want to have to go through this, so you are going to let 100 people die.

It is both yes and no..

For me, it is both YES and No, It is ethical in a way that you save one’s life whether you kill someone or not. It is better to kill someone who cause suffering to others than to see someone who suffers from those kind of person. And I do believe that if somebody died or if somebody was killed, it is their fate that brings them to it; it is the end of their life line. And even though they already gone, only the body was died, but their soul reaches its perfection (it is according to the Philosophy of man of Socrates).

But, it is also not ethical in a way that “we don’t have any license to take somebody’s life.” Only God owned those rights to take one person’s life in order to save others who deserve to live more. No one has the right to kill others, and besides there’s another way to save lives.

Feel that if you choose to

I feel that if you choose to kill one to save many that your committing a crime but the amount of necessity can change the morality of the situation giving the killer of one the obligation to do so.

What if...
By Daniel Sokol Suppose you could save five lives by taking one - what would be the correct thing to do? Such ethical dilemmas provide classic "experiments" for philosophers. Here the Magazine presents four such quandaries and asks readers to vote on what they think is right. [Magazine note: apologies but we have had a technical hitch with the votes. We've replaced the vote modules, and will add those already cast to the totals.] Like scientists, philosophers use experiments to test their theories. Unlike scientists, their experiments do not require sophisticated laboratories, white-robed technicians or even rodents. They occur in the mind, and start with 'What if...'. These "thought experiments" help philosophers clarify their understanding of certain concepts and intuitions. In the field of ethics, thought experimenters typically present a dilemma, examine the most popular "intuitive" response and then show the implications for real-world issues. But such experiments are rarely tested on large numbers of people. So to reach a larger group, here are four typical experiments. Readers are invited to vote on how they think they would act in each case. Here is a well-known example: 1. THOMSON'S VIOLINIST One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines. To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected? The creator of the experiment, Judith Thomson, thinks the answer is "no". It would be generous if you did, she claims, but there is no obligation to stay, even if that means the violinist will die. So how is this bizarre scenario related to the real world? Thomson used the experiment to show that a pregnant woman need not go to full term with her baby, as long as she had taken reasonable steps to avoid getting pregnant. It is thus a "pro-choice" argument. The violinist represents the baby, and you - in the hospital bed - play the role of the mother. If you think unhooking yourself from the violinist is acceptable, but aborting an unwanted foetus is not, what are the moral differences between the two cases? In both situations, you could save a person by bearing a great burden for nine months. One major flaw with thought experiments, especially in ethics, is that they are rarely tested on people. The sample size is minuscule. The philosopher will simply assume that most people think that one option is right (or wrong). Philippa Foot, a renowned British philosopher, believed that if a doctor, about to save a patient's life with a large dose of a scarce drug, was suddenly interrupted by the arrival of five patients each in need of one fifth of the drug (without which death would be certain), then the doctor should give it to the five. It is, after all, better to let one person die than five. Elizabeth Anscombe, another prominent philosopher, disagreed: "There seems to me nothing wrong with giving the single patient the massive dose and letting the others die". As these assumptions about people's intuition are central to the arguments of many philosophers, and as these assumptions can be tested, why not do so? 2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR One of the most famous thought experiments in ethics is "the runaway trolley". It aims to clarify how we should distinguish right from wrong. Here is the scenario with two well-known variations. A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch? 3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him? Philippa Foot would say that everyone ("without hesitation") would choose to flip the switch in the first trolley case, but that most of us would be appalled at the idea of pushing the fat man. The philosophical puzzle is this: Why is it acceptable to sacrifice the one person in The Runaway Trolley Car but not in The Fat Man case? Can it ever be morally acceptable to kill an innocent person if that is the only way to save many? Should some actions - such as deliberately killing innocent people against their wishes - never be done? The last thought experiment explores this idea: 4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out. The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast Big Jack out? If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do? Thought experiments, although abstract, possibly implausible and open to different interpretations, can have important repercussions on the way we think and act as individuals. They raise thorny questions about morality in medicine, war, politics and indeed in everyday life. Is there a difference between killing someone and letting them die? Are consequences all that matter, or are there some things we should never do, whatever the outcome? By pointing out inconsistencies in our thinking, or simply encouraging us to reflect on issues we usually ignore, they can sharpen our intellect and enrich our moral lives. They also make for great conversation topics at the dinner table or at the pub. But be warned: you may lose friends as a result. And stay away from caves and bridges. Daniel Sokol is a medical ethicist at Imperial College, London. Add your comments on this story, using the form below. I feel sorry for the five people. Not only have they had a runaway trolley hurtling towards them but also got trapped in a cave. What a day! Laura Kingdon, Cwmbran Surely the answer to the runaway trolley depends on the people involved. If it were the choice between five 90-year-olds and a single 20 year old, it would be right to save the 20 year old who, in probability, had longer to live than the others put together? Or what if those five were criminals and the other was a volunteer worker? Joanthan Kelk, Dalry, Scotland It's interesting to compare this with the Iraq war - was it right through intervention to kill as many people as we have in order to save a far greater number that were dying and would continue to die under the regime. Usually people seem to say, no, as it is us pushing the fat man, despite the fact that five people arguably died through our inaction. Brian, England In the case of the Runaway Trolley Car, I would definitely NOT flip the switch. The end doesn't always justify the means. Jenny, Leeds In the examples given we must assume that all involved people are equal. However, would it be right, good or efficent to kill one superior person to save four lesser people? I do not of course mean by race or any such thing but by worth to the whole. If the one person was a brilliant doctor developing a cure for cancer, would you divert the trolley towards him to save four? What about ten? Fifty? A thousand people crammed onto a train car packed with explosives? Chris Fox, Derby I'd use the dynamite to blast the trolley off the rails and then hook the violinist up to the fat man. Robin, Edinburgh Thomson's violinist is not the same principle as abortion. If you choose to disconnect yourself you are in essence withdrawing treatment, that is refusing to intervene to save the life of someone who would otherwise die. In an abortion you're choosing to deliberately end the life of someone who would otherwise live. Kate I would like to point out a problem I have with the direct application of the violinist thought experiment, as presented above, to the case of abortion. In the experiment, if the violinist chooses to stay connected, they need have nothing to do with the violinist once the nine months have elapsed. If a woman is pregnant, and chooses to keep the baby, they will have to bring the baby up - with important consequences for her life, that of the baby, and that of those close to her - or give the baby up for adoption - which again is likely to affect her strongly and will certainly affect the baby. Suzanne Aigrain, Cambridge If the violinist were my son or daughter I would not hesitate to stay connected. (Maybe when they recover they will keep their rooms tidy to show their gratitude!) Jack, Coventry Cave Explorers: I am a caver,and I can assure you that the smaller six people definitely would NOT let Big Jack out first- he'd be forced to go last in order to avoid the very situation described... Jane, Epsom It's your birthday. Four of your friends together buy you one lottery ticket as a present. You win £5 million. Do you share the money with these friends, who only spent £0.25 each on your birthday present? Jagdip Singh Ajimal, Manchester These situations in reality aren't as black and white as a yes or no answer - different people will respond differently and for different reasons, and no one is necessarily right or wrong. However, in reality getting involved in choosing who survives will likely get you sued or arrested! Hannah, Wokingham I really enjoyed the puzzle dilemmas, but I thought that the five people should die in the runaway trolley car as it's their fate; flipping the switch would be intentional murder. Also, if I wasn't there to flip the switch they would have died anyway- so its all fate! Ayelee, London You can only flick switches if you have a perfect understanding of the future, otherwise you might save a serial killer or kill a Nobel peace prize winner. It is an infinitely unpredictable world and philosophical conundrums cannot take account of this. As for Big Jack, he's history, primal instincts would take over from philosophy, the only decision to make is where to put the dynamite. Julian, Shrewsbury Would you injure Rooney and put him out of the world cup, or would you rather Gerrard and Lampard and Terry all were injured? Tak Joss, Guildford