Dying teenager denied heart transplant because of "trouble with the law" Dying teenager denied heart transplant because of "trouble with the law" - pg.6 | allnurses

Dying teenager denied heart transplant because of "trouble with the law" - page 6

I came across this today and felt it worthy of discussion. A 15 year old who has evidently had poor school performance and some legal troubles is now dying of heart failure and his only hope is a... Read More

  1. Visit  Christy1019 profile page
    #65 1
    Such a damn shame. When I first read this I became so angry and could only think "I told you so!" I imagine that the family who fought his rejection in the media are feeling shame, in addition to grief. I grieve for all the lives so negatively affected by this young man, but I am with Sun0408, I'm not sad for him...
  2. Visit  BrandonLPN profile page
    #66 0
    Quote from elkpark
    Oh no, not again ... What's the point of having any sort of reasonable criteria if you can pressure transplant teams into changing their decisions by getting interviewed? Would the public be happier if the organ transplant system was just "first come, first served" or done by a popularity poll?

    Hospital Reverses Decision, Adds 15-Year-Old Anthony Stokes To Heart Transplant List | Dispatches from the Underclass
    God, don't give anyone any ideas. I could see this becoming some sort of "call I your vote" TV contest.
  3. Visit  anon456 profile page
    #67 8
    This makes me mad.

    I had a peds transplant candidate patient who had already had one transplant and the parents were not compliant with meds or follow up appointments. The organ was in full rejection. Due to that, the patient was not able to get back on the list until they turned 18. I had the patient right after they turned 18 and things were looking more hopeful. The patient seemed like a very smart, motivated young person with dreams. It's too bad that irresponsible parents can affect their child's transplant status. At some point I think child services should have stepped in to promise a good medical foster home so the child didn't have to wait until their 18th birthday.
  4. Visit  Gooselady profile page
    #68 3
    There's a bigger picture here, I think. That this kid ended up dead by his own messed up ways is NOT any kind of valid reason to refuse organs to people that might not use them as well as we'd like.

    I totally agree with there being the kinds of evaluations that are being done, to determine that the precious organs go to people who are capable and willing to commit themselves to the complex aftercare. I think it was completely appropriate this kid was initially put on the fence, or taken off the list, at first. And it was appropriate that he was put back on it.

    It is better for us, as a society, to give an organ to someone who might not 'appreciate it' than to withhold organs in a more strict fashion. I'm talking about 'the big picture' here.

    We'll always have people who live right on that line between being appropriate or inappropriate for organ donation, and if we lean a little bit more to the 'generous side', but not too much, we are just a better society in general, don't you think? It's worth the loss of an organ, yes, even a heart, every once in a while. In the long run, it is more ethically sound to be a bit too liberal than a bit too 'scrooge'.

    And when things like this happen as with Stokes, we ought to discuss it and see where, or if, something different could have been done. But this ONE kid's 'misuse' of his donated organ is not a precedent, it's just gonna happen. Whatever we can do to prevent it from happening again, without becoming fascist about it, is our task.

    You just never know when you or one of your loved ones is going to suddenly be at the heart (no pun intended) of a big controversy like this. How many people we casually discuss and criticize from the news woke up that morning and thought "Gee, I think I'll really ****** up today and cause a national uproar?"

    No. It was just waking up to another day like we all do. No one is exempt from ending up on the wrong end of a situation like this, no matter what one's fantasy of themselves is. It's more ethical for EVERYONE if we accept that, every once in a while, someone will misuse their gift because we give too much rather than too little.
  5. Visit  klone profile page
    #69 1
    Ah, Gooselady - your bleeding-heart liberal is showing! (no pun intended)

    I agree with that, for the same reason I agree with social welfare, even though there is a small percentage of people who abuse it.
  6. Visit  elkpark profile page
    Quote from Gooselady
    There's a bigger picture here, I think. That this kid ended up dead by his own messed up ways is NOT any kind of valid reason to refuse organs to people that might not use them as well as we'd like.

    I totally agree with there being the kinds of evaluations that are being done, to determine that the precious organs go to people who are capable and willing to commit themselves to the complex aftercare. I think it was completely appropriate this kid was initially put on the fence, or taken off the list, at first. And it was appropriate that he was put back on it.

    It is better for us, as a society, to give an organ to someone who might not 'appreciate it' than to withhold organs in a more strict fashion. I'm talking about 'the big picture' here.

    We'll always have people who live right on that line between being appropriate or inappropriate for organ donation, and if we lean a little bit more to the 'generous side', but not too much, we are just a better society in general, don't you think? It's worth the loss of an organ, yes, even a heart, every once in a while. In the long run, it is more ethically sound to be a bit too liberal than a bit too 'scrooge'.

    And when things like this happen as with Stokes, we ought to discuss it and see where, or if, something different could have been done. But this ONE kid's 'misuse' of his donated organ is not a precedent, it's just gonna happen. Whatever we can do to prevent it from happening again, without becoming fascist about it, is our task.

    You just never know when you or one of your loved ones is going to suddenly be at the heart (no pun intended) of a big controversy like this. How many people we casually discuss and criticize from the news woke up that morning and thought "Gee, I think I'll really ****** up today and cause a national uproar?"

    No. It was just waking up to another day like we all do. No one is exempt from ending up on the wrong end of a situation like this, no matter what one's fantasy of themselves is. It's more ethical for EVERYONE if we accept that, every once in a while, someone will misuse their gift because we give too much rather than too little.
    How is it "appropriate" that he was transplanted because of a media campaign and deft use of the "race card" after he was evaluated using the exact same criteria by which every transplant candidate is evaluated and found to not meet established criteria?

    Folks, despite what the mother said in the first place, we're not talking about a misunderstood kid who had gotten into a few scuffles at school -- this is a kid who, at 15, had a lengthy list of criminal charges for violent crimes. What were people expecting to happen?

    I've been a bleeding heart liberal all my adult life. I would be fine with the idea that we should be more generous and forgiving rather than less generous and forgiving (as I am in nearly every other question of social policy) if it weren't a fact that, for every poor candidate who gets an organ, some much stronger candidate, who did meet all the established, nationally-agreed-upon criteria, doesn't get an organ.

    For all the people here who think it's fine that this case turned out this way, I hope no loved one of yours ever dies on a transplant waiting list because someone like this guy got an organ. This outcome was ENTIRELY predictable (of course, the entire train wreck was entirely predictable once the family went to the media two years ago. The hospital was going to cave; he was going to get a heart, this was going to be the eventual outcome).

    The transplantation criteria are not arbitrary standards that someone pulled out of the air; they are based on decades of experience across the nation (possibly the world; I don't know about that), and they are standards that are agreed upon by the entire transplant community. For a reason. The absolute best predictor we have of future behavior by any individual is that individual's previous behavior. That doesn't mean no one can ever change -- it just means the odds are strongly against that happening.

    Maybe it won't be too long before we arrive at some glorious sci-fi future in which we can grow all the organs we want in a laboratory setting (some of the research is promising), and there won't be any kind of shortage or necessary rationing process. When that day comes, I'll be more than happy to toss the current criteria and evaluation process and hand out organs to anyone who wants one. Need a heart? Sure, here ya go. Take two, they're small! Until then, though, however distressing it is to think about, we are rationing a precious, limited commodity and the transplant community is doing its best to do that in a reasonable, rational way that is going to get the maximum "mileage" out of the organs available. And, although I don't always agree with the outcomes of that system, I do support it as the best way to deal with the current state of transplantation.
  7. Visit  Coffee Nurse profile page
    #71 4
    "A person who has been the recipient of an organ transplant can also be an organ donor, according to Donate Life North Carolina. It's unclear if Stokes was an organ donor at the time of his death."

    My question: how is this even optional? I accept that some people have objections to being organ donors - I don't understand it, but I accept it - but if you've already received an organ yourself? Nuh uh. You benefit from the system, you pay into it too.
  8. Visit  klone profile page
    #72 0
    Quote from Coffee Nurse
    "A person who has been the recipient of an organ transplant can also be an organ donor, according to Donate Life North Carolina. It's unclear if Stokes was an organ donor at the time of his death."

    My question: how is this even optional? I accept that some people have objections to being organ donors - I don't understand it, but I accept it - but if you've already received an organ yourself? Nuh uh. You benefit from the system, you pay into it too.
    If he wasn't an organ donor, I'm guessing it was due to oversight, not conscious objection.
  9. Visit  Red Kryptonite profile page
    #73 0
    Quote from klone
    If he wasn't an organ donor, I'm guessing it was due to oversight, not conscious objection.
    Sure, because an unrepentant criminal who spent his life abusing and exploiting others would never be *selfish* right?
  10. Visit  klone profile page
    #74 1
    Quote from Red Kryptonite
    Sure, because an unrepentant criminal who spent his life abusing and exploiting others would never be *selfish* right?
    No, because he's young, probably thinks he's invincible, and organ *donation* was probably the furthest thing from his mind. I also think he probably *was* quite selfish, but I don't think that's why he wasn't an organ donor, if he indeed wasn't one.

    Millions of people have not declared themselves as organ donors. I don't think the majority of them have not done so because they're selfish. But because it's not something on the forefront of their minds. Same reason a lot of people don't have wills or POAs.
  11. Visit  nurse2be13 profile page
    #75 0
    Quote from Sun0408
    Is it wrong of me not to be sad.
    I'm sad because that organ could have gone to someone that deserved it.
  12. Visit  KelRN215 profile page
    #76 0
    Quote from anon456
    This makes me mad.

    I had a peds transplant candidate patient who had already had one transplant and the parents were not compliant with meds or follow up appointments. The organ was in full rejection. Due to that, the patient was not able to get back on the list until they turned 18. I had the patient right after they turned 18 and things were looking more hopeful. The patient seemed like a very smart, motivated young person with dreams. It's too bad that irresponsible parents can affect their child's transplant status. At some point I think child services should have stepped in to promise a good medical foster home so the child didn't have to wait until their 18th birthday.
    How did child protective services NOT step in? Was a report of neglect filed?

    Nevermind, I know the answer with my repeated experiences in dealing with them. They probably didn't have a "suitable medical foster care" placement for the kid so found it perfectly acceptable to leave him with neglectful parents because, evidently, ill and disabled children have less of a right to a safe home than typical children do.
  13. Visit  Gooselady profile page
    #77 4
    Quote from elkpark
    How is it "appropriate" that he was transplanted because of a media campaign and deft use of the "race card" after he was evaluated using the exact same criteria by which every transplant candidate is evaluated and found to not meet established criteria?

    Folks, despite what the mother said in the first place, we're not talking about a misunderstood kid who had gotten into a few scuffles at school -- this is a kid who, at 15, had a lengthy list of criminal charges for violent crimes. What were people expecting to happen?

    I've been a bleeding heart liberal all my adult life. I would be fine with the idea that we should be more generous and forgiving rather than less generous and forgiving (as I am in nearly every other question of social policy) if it weren't a fact that, for every poor candidate who gets an organ, some much stronger candidate, who did meet all the established, nationally-agreed-upon criteria, doesn't get an organ.

    For all the people here who think it's fine that this case turned out this way, I hope no loved one of yours ever dies on a transplant waiting list because someone like this guy got an organ. This outcome was ENTIRELY predictable (of course, the entire train wreck was entirely predictable once the family went to the media two years ago. The hospital was going to cave; he was going to get a heart, this was going to be the eventual outcome).

    The transplantation criteria are not arbitrary standards that someone pulled out of the air; they are based on decades of experience across the nation (possibly the world; I don't know about that), and they are standards that are agreed upon by the entire transplant community. For a reason. The absolute best predictor we have of future behavior by any individual is that individual's previous behavior. That doesn't mean no one can ever change -- it just means the odds are strongly against that happening.

    Maybe it won't be too long before we arrive at some glorious sci-fi future in which we can grow all the organs we want in a laboratory setting (some of the research is promising), and there won't be any kind of shortage or necessary rationing process. When that day comes, I'll be more than happy to toss the current criteria and evaluation process and hand out organs to anyone who wants one. Need a heart? Sure, here ya go. Take two, they're small! Until then, though, however distressing it is to think about, we are rationing a precious, limited commodity and the transplant community is doing its best to do that in a reasonable, rational way that is going to get the maximum "mileage" out of the organs available. And, although I don't always agree with the outcomes of that system, I do support it as the best way to deal with the current state of transplantation.
    This case was completely UNpredictable until he ran the stolen car into a pole.

    There isn't anyone 'out there' who can honestly say that their loved one died because a heart was instead given to an undeserving (medically or socially determined) person.

    This 'dilemma' is FALSE. It only became one after the kid did himself in.

    There's not a thing anyone (no matter how influential) can do with this information to make this system of organ donation any better than it is.

    Except to focus on a bigger picture, where we stop voting with our vague religious OPINIONS and shooting down federal funding to develop cell therapies that might use a stem cell from a three day old embryo that's been sitting in nitrogen for thirty something years.

    The problem is that we need more organs! We'll get nowhere fast in the mistaken conclusion that we can LEARN something from having 'given a heart to the wrong person'.

    If you (or anyone) can PROVE that this boy received a heart solely because the race card was pulled, or the media whipped up an anti-racist fervor, then we're talkin'. If not, this is just a war of opinions keeping us from focusing on the problem of having so few useful organs to give to people.

    Hindsight, in this situation, is completely useless, leads to nonsensical, opinionated conclusions that satisfy personal emotions but do NOTHING to address the real issues.

Must Read Topics


close