Based loosely upon the “Woman rapes man” thread, I began to wonder. If my kidneys were stolen via the well-known bath tub urban legend and I knew into whom they were transplanted, would I be within my rights to get them back? Could/would/should the state order that the thief undergo another operation to have them removed and transplanted back into my body?
For sake of this debate, assume that the person that received my kidneys was a participant in the removal. Once they leave my body and enter another’s, are they beyond the reach of the law and I’m SOL?
I promise that this is not a “gotcha thread” and there will be no “but then what about female on male rape and abortion?” at least on my part. I cannot control what others post but I beg of them not to make that comparison. This is specifically about kidneys. Sperm is a renewable resource and is not comparable.
Would it make a difference if only one kidney was stolen? I do have a backup but if I were to lose it, I’d be SOL again.
I would be in favor of a court ordering the return of my kidney(s) but finding a doctor to do it might be problematic. I assume that there could be 8th amendment issues as well.
I assume you mean using the as yet unknown method of stealing kidneys that doesn’t kill you and the kidneys.
I’d guess no because endangering the life of the recipient would not be an acceptable means of making you whole. And as a result he may not be liable for anything if he wasn’t a participant in the theft.
Let me get this straight though, it’s just your kidneys being transplanted in some other guy. There’s no deal where his get put into you right?
I’ll just accept that as part of the hypothesis. It shouldn’t matter if they happen to do it in a certified facility with a trained surgeon, as long as they don’t have your permission they’re stealing from you.
No. In that case you can sue him for the value of your kidneys, pain and suffering, etc., but I doubt the courts would allow a person to be required to risk their life to return stolen property. Now if it were ruled that it wasn’t life threatening, then I’m not sure.
The only thing like this I can remember is a guy charged with a crime of some sort, and the state wanted him to undergo surgery to have a bullet removed from his body so they could prove he was the guy that got shot during the crime. I don’t know how that turned out.
It shouldn’t matter if it’s kidneys though. Let’s say it was a pacemaker implanted in someone that was stolen, or an artificial heart, same set of problems.
I would hope that you would be allowed to get them back, and I would support any law that codifies that, and be against anyone who says you can’t or shouldn’t. Fuck that die, he deserves to die, or at the least live with no kidneys
Looks like it was disallowed, but part of the ruling court’s reasoning was that the bullet wasn’t evidence that was crucial to the prosecution’s case. Wonder how it would have turned out otherwise.
I usually don’t play Evil!Skald games in GD, but I feel compelled to point out something for which his viewpoint is helpful.
If I’m a criminal in the organ-stealing trade, what possible motivation do I have to leave the victim alive once I have the kidney? Even if it’s technically possible for a seductress to take a kidney in a hotel bathroom and leave the schmuck alive and packed in ice, she’ll never do it, because that guy’s a positive danger to her; he’s seen her face, talked with her for an extended period, et cetera.
Nobody doing this is going to steal just one kidney anyway; they’ll take both. And in the unlikely event the victim isn’t entirely dead when the procedure’s done, they’re going to slit his throat.
In sum: leave the evil plans to the criminals, okay?
Would both kidneys be transplanted into the same person? You only need one to live. It seems the criminals would profit more by taking both kidneys, then selling each one to two different people.
Not a law-talking-guy, but my understanding of the situation on this is that the tort wouldn’t be “theft” - at least in my jurisdiction - because you can’t transfer ownership of body parts. The case would be considered an “assault”, and therefore the body parts would very much be eligible for return.
The matter that the plaintiff would be dead before this came to trial, however, would close off any civil claim.
Why do you (and others in this thread) believe that being anephric (i.e. having no kidneys or having no kidney function) is incompatible with life? Even without dialysis, if you watch your diet and control your blood pressure, you can go a “long time” without kidneys. I won’t define a “long time” because whatever it is, you can undergo dialysis before that limit was reached. And, with dialysis, life expectancy, while not normal, is usually in decades.
You guys know that kidney theft actually does happen, right? They have broken up rings in India.
Why leave them alive? Dead people leave bodies and those get noticed. But in some places, an assault on a poor person is unlikely to lead to any consequences.