Anthony Stokes became a cause célèbre in 2013 when he was turned down for a heart transplant because of his “history of non-compliance” from juvenile delinquency to low grades to other bad habits. A public campaign led to a reversal of the decision and he received the heart transplant recently. He is now dead after going on a crime spree, including the attempted shooting of an elderly woman and running over a pedestrian.
On Tuesday, Stokes took his new heart out for a crime spree that began with a carjacking at a mall. He then kicked in the door of a home and burglarizing it. He then fired a shot at an elderly woman who was able to call police. He then took the police on a high-speed chase where he hit a pedestrian and then a pole.
At the time of the transplant controversy, the family spokesman Mark Bell objected to the doctor’s criteria and said “I guess he didn’t think Anthony was going to be a productive citizen.” The objections to the denial raised valid question of the criteria used in such cases in terms of the predictive “positive” contribution of a recipient.
While it seems the center’s “contraindications” proved prophetic in this case, there remains the question of whether doctors should make such judgments based on a recipient’s character or social record as opposed to age and health.