|
there are legit way more people that need hearts than there are hearts to be given. to qualify for a heart transplant you need to have as many things going for you as possible to ensure you survive post transplant. self destructive behavior like delinquency is at odds with that, and racial activists straight-up caused a heart to be wasted here
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:56 |
|
|
e: ^^the parents share zero blame for getting him a new heart, I would expect nothing less for them to go to every length to save his life (though what the gently caress were they doing when he posted himself posing with a gun on goddamn facebook? That requires some degree of being absent)Zeno-25 posted:It makes them bad people because of the end result, not because of their motivations. Good intentions and all that. being hung up on the idea of Stokes "deserving" to die just makes you sound like a bigoted old man. its not remotely about whether or not Stokes having a history of criminal behavior made him scum, and scum dont deserve new hearts or something. It's just about when you choose who lives or dies, you ought to choose the person who's likely to live for the longer period of time. Stokes's history implied a degree of self-destructive behavior that carries a significant risk of early death. The people who claimed discrimination against Stokes share blame for the heart going to waste, but everyone posting about a thug wasting a second chance are just revealing their own bigotry. (Though loving seriously, where the gently caress were the people that worked themselves into a furor to get Stokes on the transfer list when he needed help after he got the heart to change his living situation? It smacks of Republicans being obsessed about the life of an unborn fetus, but the moment it passes through the birth canal it can get hosed) A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Apr 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Kaal posted:According to the Christian advocacy group that spearheaded the effort to get him his heart, they connected him with a mentoring organization but lost direct contact after the surgery was successful. Unless you expect them to perform constant oversight for years afterward, it sounds to me like they did their due diligence. I mean it's not like Stokes was wandering down the hospital corridors with a gun in hand stealing clipboards - regardless of his actions outside of the medical environment, I'm sure he was just a normal patient while under their care. Certainly if I was in charge of their organization, I'd have thought that resources would be better spent helping other people in need, rather than babysitting one person for political reasons. fair enough, I suppose that part of my post was pretty lazy when a simple googling could have given me actual facts on the matter
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 05:30
|
|