Georgia Teen Who Received Heart Transplant Goes On Crime Spree Before Dying In High-Speed Chase

anthony-stokes_c0-17-640-390_s561x327Anthony 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.

68 thoughts on “Georgia Teen Who Received Heart Transplant Goes On Crime Spree Before Dying In High-Speed Chase”

  1. Of course the decision to give this thug a heart was racial. It is always racial. Grow up. That is how we roll in Obama’s America.

  2. Nettles said…
    “Your accusations against isaac for attempting to derail the thread are intellectually dishonest. isaac responded to pogo’s declamation that all healthcare decisions will be politicized, a rather ridiculous, unfounded claim wholly without merit, if truth is any guide.”
    ********************************
    Nettles, that is a common tactic from those two. You’re not going to find much intellectual honesty from that bunch.

  3. To be clear…………”They claimed” being the activists and the family who cried racism….not the doctors.

  4. But to introduce the issue of race in such an ugly, low-brow fashion is beneath contempt.

    Nettles

    The ONLY ONLY reason the doctors had to relent and give the heart transplant to this kid was race. They were browbeaten, cowed, and forced to give the heart to him.

    They claimed that the reason he wasn’t being given the heart transplant was : “because he was poor, black and had trouble with the law, which his mother said was for fighting,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. The doctors didn’t want to do it because the felt that he would not comply with the treatment and that it would be a waste of a human heart.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/georgia-teen-who-got-donated-heart-dies-in-crime-spree-cops/ar-AAajise?ocid=ansnewsNYDailyNews11

    If it were NOT for the issue of race being introduced by the activists and parents, he would not have been given this chance which he squandered and for which other more worthy lives were likely lost.

    So don’t start throwing stones when you have no idea what the issue is.

  5. nettles: I suppose you’re right. Picking up the chant of Al Sharpton and his
    racist buddy in the White House is ugly and I apologize, however, I always wonder why they do it, but then they do attract the progressive liberals and the whites who have been made to feel guilty over the long buried slavery issue. This delinquent had a violent history and I imagine it was some soppy eyed do-Gooders who determined that placing a good heart in a hoodlum would be a life changing experience. This was heart surgery, not brain surgery, hence the outcome. Wake up.

  6. Hefner,

    There is no evidence that this kid was ever a slave, and it’s highly doubtful that he nor his parents ever were.

    No doubt you believe your comment was clever and droll, however, it reveals a very ugly and racist sentiment that has no place in a civil discourse.

    There is certainly a valid question as to whether a person’s conduct can disqualify them from receiving a vital organ transplant, which can include the donor’s intentions. But to introduce the issue of race in such an ugly, low-brow fashion is beneath contempt.

  7. Trooper york and pogo,

    Your accusations against isaac for attempting to derail the thread are intellectually dishonest. isaac responded to pogo’s declamation that all healthcare decisions will be politicized, a rather ridiculous, unfounded claim wholly without merit, if truth is any guide.

    Moreover, he makes a valid point about health insurance in the free-market, where the death panels really exist.

    There was a time when intellectual integrity was the coin of this realm and discussion threads were entertaining thought-provoking and interesting. Now, all that’s left are little Fox News echo-chambers, some of whom may be paid for their participation, some whom may truly believe the bilious anti-government swill they regurgitate.

    In any case, it’s become rather pathetic.

  8. And we should honor this poor underprivileged black boy who was obviously traumatized from his days as a slave.

  9. The doctors who do the heart transplant in a person need to have a heart to heart conversation. “You have been given a new life. Bear this heart well.” The doctors here in this case might be sorry that they gave the punk the heart. But the question arises: could they retrieve it from his dead body and use it again?

  10. HBO did a fairly even handed documentary on kidney transplants and people paying black market docs to get one. The donors are 3rd world people who get what is a good sum of money. On its face, it seems unfair. But, watch the documentary. In some respects it is unfair. But, so is life. Thought provoking piece, titled, Tales From The Organ Trade.

  11. If having a violent criminal record meant not getting a heart transplant, and it would preclude many other social benefits as well, it might help deter criminal behavior. Just let them die. Your society tolerates and actually condones criminal acts by leniently punishing those who commit them. Empress upon every person what they receive from contributing to the human community and what they will lose by being harmful and destructive. It means nothing as it is now. Then execute violent criminals and you will have even less crime. That would be zero tolerance for their heinous deeds.

  12. Just to make a point I missed, I am against transplants from criminals because of the anecdotal evidence.

  13. I have always been wishy-washy about organ transplants with either state or federal prisoners. I can see the need to do it. I have trouble with the need for ME to pay for it. And it is never a good idea to do an operation on a patient who is a bad risk. However, in this case, the bad risk was that he would not take his post-op meds, not that he would become a criminal again. He evidently took his post-op meds to the point where he could become a criminal again.

    There is some anecdotal evidence of transplant patients picking up traits or tastes of the person they got the organ from. Guess that did not happen in this case.

  14. I can remember the controversy regarding Larry Hagman and his liver transplant in 1995. Many people criticized transplanting an organ, so desperately sought after by many, into an individual who had abused his body with alcohol and drugs for decades. He went on to live until 2012, I believe.

    It does, however, raise an interesting dilemma regarding the allocation of limited and precious resources, such as human organs.

    For all of you who think that socialized medicine is the answer to all of the ills of society, just a personal anecdote. A friend, who lives in a country with socialized medicine, was informed that he required a cornea transplant. He was told that he needed to get on the list, with everyone else, and wait for approximately a year or so to receive his transplant. He was also informed that if he waited more than a couple of weeks to have the procedure that he was likely to lose the sight in that eye. By the way, he was in his mid thirties at the time. For the bargain basement price of just $10,000, the physicians informed him, he could, in essence, jump the line, and have his cornea within a few days. He paid the money and received his cornea.

  15. Mickey Mantle and David Crosby are just two examples of rich connected people who should not have received a transplant. I am sure there are many more.

  16. Political correctness rules. Politicians all knuckle under to the loudest voices regardless of how stupid the outcome would be. I guess that is how it has always been but somehow it seems so much more blatant.

  17. For alcoholics, often 6 months of abstinence is required before they’ll let you get an organ

    We have a very close relative who is on the liver transplant list…..HOWEVER, she will not stop drinking. Sneaks alcohol and exacerbates her bleeding ulcer and has ended up in the ICU at least 3 times in the last 10 months.

    Until she stops and realizes her life is at risk and that alcohol is not worth throwing your life away, we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that she should not get a transplant. (not that we are in charge of this decision)

    We feel that a “new lease on life” will just be a trigger to have her continue to destroy the new liver. It would be a waste until and unless she cleans up her life. The liver should go to someone who will make a positive difference in their life and the life of their family.

    So very sad to not have any control over your own impulses 🙁

Comments are closed.