Atlanta Teen Who Received Controversial Heart Transplant Dies After Carjack

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Atlanta Teen Who Received Controversial Heart Transplant Dies After Carjack

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

quote:

DeKalb Police arrested Stokes 11 times between 2010 and 2015, said Capt. Steve Fore. The charges included burglary, auto theft, weapons charges, terroristic threats. He had a burglary and truancy charge in 2010 as well as another burglary charge of a home in December 2012 and he picked up another burglary charge in February 2013, six months before the transplant controversy erupted, Fore said.

In April of that year police stopped a Tahoe with Stokes and two other teens because someone complained the group had fired a gun several times after a disagreement. The arresting officer found two stolen pistols and also arrested Stokes for an outstanding arson warrant, the report said.

Black or White, the kid sounds like scum tbh. How many kids with that kind of criminal record go on to live peaceful, productive lives?

# ¿ Apr 3, 2015 17:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 11:50

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

nutranurse posted:

More than you'd think when they get aid from society rather than derision and accusations of being scum.

If 11 arrests, multiple charges & a carjacking doesn't qualify someone as scum, what does?

# ¿ Apr 3, 2015 17:35

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Effectronica posted:

So we're actually at the point where we're whining about saving lives now? Viva la muerte, motherfuckers.

I'd rather the heart went to someone who wasn't on the path to being a violent criminal. Until we have an infinite heart cloning machine we have to pick the most worthy recipients.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 03:00

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Effectronica posted:

Viva la muerte.

Do you not understand that there are only so many organs to go around? It's not like anyone is watching the kid die and cackling manically.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 03:20

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Saying this issue is about Race is idiotic when a White kid with the same criminal record should have been denied as well.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 06:08

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

VitalSigns posted:

"But who would have sympathy for a ~~Negro~~ teenager with 11 arrests and multiple burglary/firearms charges? Must have been white guilt"
-Goons

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 08:36

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

If he was the only one in need of a heart, of course he should get it.

If there were others on the waiting list, who were of reasonable age, and they did not have his criminal history, they should have got the heart instead.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 09:04

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Hodgepodge posted:

So, the lives of people with criminal records are worth less than the lives of people without criminal records?

All else being equal, if you have to choose, yes. A thousand times yes. I am astounded that there is any disagreement here.

quote:

Further, doctors should attempt to evaluate the relative worth of the lives of their patients and base medical decisions on their conclusions?

If you can only pick one person to save, of course. It makes more sense to pick Susie, who is a straight-A student who volunteers for charity on the weekend, instead of Bob the noted car thief.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 11:51

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

I'm not convinced it's White Guilt, more a refusal to believe that maybe, just maybe, a teen with 11 arrests is a bad person compared to your average kid.

Again - I don't care what colour the guy was, the criminal record is enough for me.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 12:28

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

VitalSigns posted:

You sound like you care, because you really really want to use it as a soapbox for why black people get all the breaks, even though your only proof for race-baiting being involved was "well, he was black! Race-baiting is what they do!"

What the hell? Please, quote which posts of mine you read to reach that conclusion. Are you sure you're not mixing me up with someone else?

Hodgepodge posted:

You're astounded that people object to doctors personally deciding which lives are more valuable than others?

Or that people object to the idea that a criminal record makes one's life inherently worth less than that of others?

Both, in the context of deciding who gets a life-saving organ, which is not an infinite resource.

quote:

For example, your position disallows any idea of inherent human rights. If one life is less valuable than another, and the difference is decided by the state, and may result in deprivation of life-saving treatment (a basic human right), then humans only have rights at the pleasure of the state. In a medical context, this has disturbing implications.

To throw an extreme example your way: Patient A is an 85-year old chain smoking serial-killer. Patient B is a 30 year old genius who has won multiple Nobel prizes. They both need a lung transplant to survive, but there is only one set of lungs to go around.

Do I think it's ethical for doctors to step in and say it's idiotic to give them to patient A, so therefore patient B gets her life saved? Absolutely. Taking a "all life is special, let's flip a coin to see who wins the lungs" view is foolish in a world with finite resources.
Atlanta guy is the same thing, just to a lesser degree.

quote:

So just to be clear, do you think it is obvious that a juvenile record should strip citizens of their basic human rights?

I don't think it's a basic human right to be entitled to a finite and desperately needed resource. Practically it is impossible, otherwise we would not have waiting lists.

quote:

Likewise, making the decision to not provide life-saving medical intervention cuts right to the heart of medical ethics. Most doctors take an oath specifically to respect human life and (in more recent years) human rights. Do you think that a criminal record is sufficient cause to exempt doctors from their oaths?

Giving the heart to someone who isn't going to throw their life away would arguably result in greater benefit to human life.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 12:52

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Strange, the strikethough on the word "negro" isn't showing in your quote, but it is in my post.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 12:59

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Hodgepodge posted:

Even if it were, do you believe that priority should be given to patients of higher social and/or economic status (criminal record status) during triage?

A Senator vs Joe the sheet-metal worker? Other concerns should probably be the deciding factor.

A competent General vs a Private, both in a warzone? The General. Letting the Private die will arguably result in a greater number of lives saved long-term.

Michael the Average Teenager vs Billy the Violent Juvenile Delinquent? Sorry Billy, society won't miss you as much.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 13:19

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Hodgepodge posted:

Age and chain-smoking are medical factors, but assuming that there was no net difference in their chances of surviving after the transplant, then they are both simply patients. As a doctor, one takes an oath to treat patients in a certain way, including fairly and without prejudice.

So the serial killer with 5-10 years of life left should have equal access to the organ a Nobel prize winner with 60 years left, and letting the Nobel prize winner die due to a coin-flip is only fair. Gotcha.

quote:

The express point of such an oath is to provide a statement that one will not make special exceptions to the principles of medical ethics on the basis of their own judgement

So, you think that it's okay for a doctor to personally decide whether or not to provide life-or-death care on the basis of their (your) judgement that it would be "idiotic" to do otherwise?

With one organ, there may be multiple patients. The medical profession has to pick someone. By giving it to one patient, they are deciding not to provide life-or-death care to the others.

Since some patients have to forgo this care anyway, why not give it to the most deserving cause?

quote:

An allocation based on human rights necessarily excludes social and economic considerations, such as criminal records.

You're playing with words here. Practically a "human right" that many people go without due to finite resources is no right at all. Maybe it should be, but until we have replicators, we have to decide who gets what organ. If we have to make that decision why should it be made blindly, with no attention paid to the benefit (or determent) to society for a given choice?

quote:

How does a doctor decide who is going to "throw their life away" and who is not? How should one decide what the relative worth of one life is, compares to another?

A team of experts, much like what happened here before political meddling.

quote:

Do you believe that this decision could be made on the basis of a juvenile criminal record?

It should be a contributing factor, yes.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 13:53

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Effectronica posted:

The team of experts made a decision based on the likelihood of his taking his medication. By that metric, they absolutely made a mistake in their initial evaluation, because the transplant was a resounding success and the kid took his meds.

The Heart is now dead, a mere 2 years after the transplant. A great success indeed.

quote:

Furthermore, if you believe that you can clearly discern who is worthy to live and to die, why not put that into practice?

If I am ever in the (terrible) situation where multiple people are dying, and I can only save one, you bet I'm going to apply my judgement.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 14:15

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Effectronica posted:

That's not what I asked. You believe that you can clearly discern who deserves to live and who does not deserve to live, judging by your posts in this thread. Never mind that the metric you're using would necessitate your suicide, why aren't you going out and putting this into real practice instead of engaging in passivity?

You are a lunatic, and I'm glad your obvious mental illness should prevent you being able to buy firearms.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2015 14:20

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

Note to self: Never visit the US.

Hell I own guns, but if posing with a pistol like that is normal, I want to avoid the entire country.

e: At least the girl above isn't pointing the rifle at the camera and has proper trigger discipline, but it's still an odd photo to make your facebook pic.

e #2: Also, I'd like to think the girl doesn't have an extensive criminal record, unlike our deceased friend. If you don't find someone with a history of violent crime pointing a gun intimidating well :shrug:

tumblr.txt fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Apr 5, 2015

# ¿ Apr 5, 2015 17:39

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

VitalSigns posted:

Interesting to see all the pro gun-control posts appearing in this thread.

Maybe the United States should have regulation that does a better job keeping guns out of the hands of teenagers, then frightening pictures like these won't happen. Eh?

I don't know US law that well, but I'm pretty sure minors and felons are already prohibited from owning pistols. If so then he's already breaking the law & better enforcement is needed. If not, if you can suggest a better way to realistically keep guns out of the hands of criminals (keeping in mind there are already ~300 million out there), without inconveniencing innocent people, I'm all ears.

Remember money for law enforcement / health / public services is finite, so please give a rough cost benefit analysis before suggesting something that will bankrupt the USA.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2015 17:53

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

tezcat posted:

If you are gonna visit somewhere, take up my suggestion about a hospital/clinic or ER room in a primarily white part of the globe. Your tirades about how anyone should be denied patient care because of loving up is astounding to hear coming from a non American (at least Americans have decades of ignorance behind them, whats your excuse?)

The argument has never been "violent criminals don't deserve medical care", but rather "if we have to choose between a normal person and a violent criminal, should we flip a coin or say the violent criminal isn't worth it?"

If there was no-one else in the queue, fine, give the guy the Heart. If there was anyone else who wasn't on the path to becoming a career criminal, give it to them instead.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2015 17:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 11:50

tumblr.txt: Jan 11, 2015; by zen death robot

VitalSigns posted:

Ah, that's what I thought. No interest in improving regulation or enforcement, just impotent handwringing about teenagers with guns.

Actually, I am interested, but I think that ship has sailed. Even if it were somehow possible to outlaw all guns - buying them back at $500 ea would cost about $150 billion. Assuming you get 90% of them off the streets in a buyback, and get have a massive law enforcment effort that gets 1000/day off the street - it would take ~82 years to get them all. To put the owners in jail would increase the prison population tenfold.

I don't think you, I, or anyone else in this thread has any realistic and affordable way to stop scum in the US getting guns.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2015 18:13

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Atlanta Teen Who Received Controversial Heart Transplant Dies After Carjack