Thursday, January 04, 2007

Telesales Morons and Restricting Growth in Mentally Disabled Children

Another stagnant day waiting for something interesting to happen. Ended yesterday (well, 5am this morning) with a poker tournament, finishing 8th out of 370 players. I won $220, first was $2,000 but I learnt long ago not to think like that. That means from $25 I now have $750 in just over a week- not bad! Will do nicely for two months rent, takes the pressure off my savings.
My day was brilliantly interrupted by one of those fabulous telesales people. The converstaion (if you can call it that) ran something like this-
Me:Hello?
Telesales Rep: Hello, is that Eddie Langford?
Me:No.
TR
: Oh, but you're a family member?
Me: Yes......
TR: Let me tell you about the new package contracts we have right now....
Me: I'm not interested. (I'm honestly not, I'm watching Deal or No Deal).
TR: Great, it's a new way to save money.
Me: I'm not interested.
TR: Wonderful then, let's talk about your present contract.
Me: I'm not interested.
TR: Could I start by confirming your current add****click****

I hung up, mid sentence. In my defence, I had told him fairly clearly three times to piss off. And when someone is in the middle of an all-blue round (No Deal Noel!!) then frankly I don't have the time or the patience.
England look like their usual selves, letting Warne get 70 odd and even Clarke got a quick 35. Just one unfavorable comparison between the two teams, our tail would be lucky to get out of single figures if you added all their scores up.
Saw a news article today about an American couple who have chosen to administer drugs to their severely mentally disabled child, to stop her growing too large for them to comfortably care for. I'll have to check the facts about the drugs used. The papers are using tag lines like "a child forever", but to be honest the girl in question has a mental age of 3 months and she wouldn't be able to use her body in a adult manner even if she was physically fully grown. I think, in danger of allowing the thin end of the wedge, that the couple's decision wasn't all that bad.If they are so hard pressed to make her quality of life good if she's physically fully grown, I can't see what the large problem is with stopping her body (which she has no power to use) growing to a difficult size. Everyone will benefit, it seems. The danger comes from allowing cases like this one, but with fundamental differences, to recieve the same liberal treatment, and set in motion a spiral of unethical treatments. We'll see what the papers say, no doubt some group somewhere will loathe the idea.
In the medical vein, check this link out. We know the NHS is understaffed and underfunded, but your bed collapsing whilst you're giving birth must have been a little unexpected..
Of for a warm up curry tonight, in preparation for the big event on Saturday. 21st birthday, and do I feel that old? Sometimes...




6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You know what...I think the main problem with this is that most of it could be done hormonally, they didnt need to be so invasive.

The Ante Poster said...

I was unaware of this. I was led to believe that it was all growth hormone regulated. It would be interesting to know the details.

Anonymous said...

They obviously did some hormone therapy, but most of the controversy was that they not only carried out a hysterectomy but also removed whatever lymph nodes lead to breast growth. Both of which can be control with hormones alone.

The Ante Poster said...

Oh yes, I remember, they did surgical extractions to make her comfortable. I think both methods (drugs and surgery) led to the same end but surgery of course was quicker, and probably cheaper.

Anonymous said...

Good point, though sometimes it's hard to arrive to definite conclusions

Anonymous said...

top [url=http://www.001casino.com/]free casino[/url] hinder the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]free casino bonus[/url] autonomous no deposit hand-out at the foremost [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatchcasino
[/url].