That rat heart story is exciting, but it's not organ printing. I'd urge caution about the heart experiment. It's cool that they pulled it off, but some of the caveats from the Nature Medicine paper reporting it are that it doesn't beat nearly as strongly as a normal heart, nor is it beating properly in time. No actual blood flow has been pushed through the thing, so we don't know if it can perform well enough to replace even diseased tissue in a person. Finally, if you think about doing this in a person, you'd need a donor heart. There's very few of these available, and the vast majority of them are from old people who probably don't have the best hearts available. And it's not at all clear yet that we could print an effective heart scaffold de novo and have it work as well, although it's a possibility. Proof of concept is still waiting.
So, at least in this really challenging case (replacing a blood vessel and a heart aren't even remotely on the same scale of complexity) it really does look like we're still decades away.
It's still far too young to see any real successes. Prior to the past year, there wasn't any realistic way to make use of stem cells in many circumstances because of the paucity of cell lines available. Now there's more coming online. The real breakthrough though, Induced pluripotent Stem (iPS) cell technology, is brand new, and people have spent the last year making it safer by removing cMyc and whatever other oncogenes were necessary in the original formulation. That's basically done now and iPS cells should be less cancerous, so people are starting to move forward.
Remember that clinical trials take a very long time, so don't expect to see results so soon. Clinical trials for stem cell therapy are underway and from what little I've read they seem to be going well. You're right that the cancer problem still needs to be solved, and that it's never a good idea to believe wild predictions, things are looking vastly more positive for stem cell therapy than you make out.
In the Polanco case, as in Daniel's, there was no shortage of documentation. The account of the history teacher's interactions with the apparently suicidal boy came primarily from his teaching assistant, who wrote a detailed letter to administrators. In addition, students submitted written statements that were introduced at Polanco's hearing.
If you think that the TA is a "an emotionally disturbed 12 year old" then you fail at reading comprehension. Bringing your own prejudices to the article is cute and all, but no one, especially not a teacher should be telling a kid who tried to commit suicide that he should "Carve deeper next time". If you don't trust the TA's word then that's your business, but if you want to side with a teacher who's encouraging an eighth grader to commit suicide then I think you're one sick fuck.
What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?