NationStates Jolt Archive

Ben and Jerry are a couple of guys sitting in a bar. They don't know each other but over the course of the evening they grow to dislike each other severely. After a few more drinks and a couple more hours, their argument degrades into a physical altercation. They fight with bare hands but after a while Ben reaches for a broken chair leg and beats Jerry severely on his back, causing severe internal injuries.

Jerry goes to the hospital and it is soon learned that both of his kidneys have been damaged and he will die without a kidney transplant.

Question for your consideration:Should Ben be obligated to donate one of his own?

-We know that the law provides for no such penalty already so let's leave the legality out of it and concentrate only on the ethics of it, or perhaps why the law SHOULD be changed to permit it.

Consider the following possible permutations of the scenario:

-What if Ben caused this particular damage to the kidneys deliberately as opposed to accidentally?
-What if the organ to be donated was not one that could be done without, such as a heart?
-If Ben isn't a match for Jerry, by what other means could he somehow provide a kidney that does match? Would this solution also apply to the second question above?
-Would it matter who started the fight?
-What if Ben hadn't hit Jerry, but accidentally caused this damage to Robbins, an innocent bystander? Would Ben be solely responsible for a replacement kidney, or would Jerry bear some level of responsibility as well?
-What if Ben caused this injury to Jerry but by pure accident, and not as part of a fight? (Like a car accident, for example)

I haven't fully decided how I feel about all of those questions, so until I do I'll just ask, what do you guys think? Can a case be made for involuntary organ donation in a scenario like this?



(Note: This thread was inspired by a conversation between myself and Dempublicents1 in an Abortion thread, but please do not take this as some kind of backdoor argument related to abortion or anything of the kind. I'm not tying this question in with the ethics of abortion in any way, shape or form, so I ask the same of you guys.)

Anybody else suddenly want some ice cream?

No, I can't see any circumstance where I'd feel comfortable forcing someone to donate an organ while they're alive. Control over one's own body is pretty high up there on my list of personal liberties.

On the other hand, if Ben later gets decapitated by the debris from an exploding furby, I see no ethical qualms over taking a viable kidney from the corpse regardless of what Ben would have wanted or what his family wants and giving it to Jerry or any other suitable person. I see no reason why the wishes of the dead should trump the survival of the living.

No, I can't see any circumstance where I'd feel comfortable forcing someone to donate an organ while they're alive. Control over one's own body is pretty high up there on my list of personal liberties.

On the other hand, if Ben later gets decapitated by the debris from an exploding furby, I see no ethical qualms over taking a viable kidney from the corpse regardless of what Ben would have wanted or what his family wants and giving it to Jerry or any other suitable person. I see no reason why the wishes of the dead should trump the survival of the living.

That makes sense, except that such a system might encourage families like Jerry's to murder guys like Ben in order to bring about the post-mortem transplant.

That makes sense, except that such a system might encourage families like Jerry's to murder guys like Ben in order to bring about the post-mortem transplant.

Then whoever is next in line could kill Jerry so he gets the kidney instead.

I like where this is going. :)

That makes sense, except that such a system might encourage families like Jerry's to murder guys like Ben in order to bring about the post-mortem transplant.

Well could make it that murder victims organs aren't used to discourage this. Or just rip out the organ if this is found to be the case.

-Snip-
Basically, I agree with LG, except that if by some freakish coincidence Ben is actually a genetic match for Jerry and there aren't any spares around, he should be presented with the option of either a huge fine or yielding one of his kidneys - not because of any sense of punishment, but more because the issues surrounding the donation process become an awful lot more straightforward if a donor is immediately available, and the fine will tend to pressure Ben into giving one up.

The situation is obviously different if the organ cannot be done without, or if Ben isn't a match. Here, any such efforts would be purely punitive, which doesn't help Jerry any, although it would make sense for Ben to cover any medical costs (if Jerry isn't insured or in a public healthcare system).

Basically, I agree with LG, except that if by some freakish coincidence Ben is actually a genetic match for Jerry and there aren't any spares around, he should be presented with the option of either a huge fine or yielding one of his kidneys - not because of any sense of punishment, but more because the issues surrounding the donation process become an awful lot more straightforward if a donor is immediately available, and the fine will tend to pressure Ben into giving one up.

The situation is obviously different if the organ cannot be done without, or if Ben isn't a match. Here, any such efforts would be purely punitive, which doesn't help Jerry any, although it would make sense for Ben to cover any medical costs (if Jerry isn't insured or in a public healthcare system).

So if I understand you, you're saying that should they be a match then Ben could have the OPTION of donation to avoid stiffer fines/penalties.

I like that.

I tried to think of a useful scenario to fit in the event that they don't match. Wasn't there recently a doctor who claimed to have found a way to perform organ transplants without rejection regardless of the blood types involved?

anybody Else Suddenly Want Some Ice Cream?
Ice Cream!!!!! :d

Wasn't there recently a doctor who claimed to have found a way to perform organ transplants without rejection regardless of the blood types involved?
AFAIK most organ transplants can be done even without the donor and the recipient being a complete match. It is preferable that they match as close as possible, and I think they do that. But there are immunosuppressive agents and medications that slow down rejection, there are times that they don't even have to match.

I've never donated an organ, but I did give a piano away to the Salvation Army. (rimshot)

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night, don't forget to tip your waitress.

Nope.

Basically, I agree with LG, except that if by some freakish coincidence Ben is actually a genetic match for Jerry and there aren't any spares around, he should be presented with the option of either a huge fine or yielding one of his kidneys - not because of any sense of punishment, but more because the issues surrounding the donation process become an awful lot more straightforward if a donor is immediately available, and the fine will tend to pressure Ben into giving one up.Why should Ben receive an additional fine just because his kidney matches? Seems like punishment based on genetics to me.

I see 3 things of note here to speak on:

1] Yes i want ice cream

2] In the case of an attack that causes such severe bodily harm that the victim requires replacement organs, if the attacker is alive then it should be a fine of the cost to replace the organ(s), and possibly time in jail for the attack

3] compulsory organ donation should be set at only those who die in prison, all civilians still follow the volunteer donor rules

Why should Ben receive an additional fine just because his kidney matches? Seems like punishment based on genetics to me.

Reducing his sentence from manslaughter to assault should be incentive enough.

That makes sense, except that such a system might encourage families like Jerry's to murder guys like Ben in order to bring about the post-mortem transplant.

To have your organs donated postmortem you basically have to die in hospital; they're considered unusable very quickly after death (could be fifteen minutes? I don't really have the specifics at my fingertips). So I can't see how murdering someone for their organs would become feasible.

That said, forced organ donation strikes me as a pretty barbaric punishment. "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" has never struck me as a particularly enlightened ethical principle, and giving the state the legal mandate to open you up and reallocate your organs is unnecessarily invasive and humiliating. I think it would fall under most interpretations of "cruel and unusual".

I see 3 things of note here to speak on:

1] Yes i want ice cream

2] In the case of an attack that causes such severe bodily harm that the victim requires replacement organs, if the attacker is alive then it should be a fine of the cost to replace the organ(s), and possibly time in jail for the attack

3] compulsory organ donation should be set at only those who die in prison, all civilians still follow the volunteer donor rules

Here's an interesting question... In a case of such a severe attack, in our current system there'd certainly be some form of incarceration, but would that necessarily be the BEST solution? After all, putting Ben in jail isn't going to help Jerry heal any faster, and if there's to be a fine, a criminal record won't make it easy for Ben to find employment to pay it with.

What about a form of compensation by indentured servitude?

Here's an interesting question... In a case of such a severe attack, in our current system there'd certainly be some form of incarceration, but would that necessarily be the BEST solution? After all, putting Ben in jail isn't going to help Jerry heal any faster, and if there's to be a fine, a criminal record won't make it easy for Ben to find employment to pay it with.

What about a form of compensation by indentured servitude?

What is this, Leviticus or something?

What is this, Leviticus or something?

Hey, it would definitely be a deterrent...

Question for your consideration:Should Ben be obligated to donate one of his own?

Morally, I would say yes. But I wouldn't advocate changing the law so that he would be forced or coerced into doing so.

-What if Ben caused this particular damage to the kidneys deliberately as opposed to accidentally?

I'd consider him even more of an asshole if he didn't apologize and offer up one of his own.

-What if the organ to be donated was not one that could be done without, such as a heart?

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty as it is. I certainly don't think it should be imposed through organ donation.

-If Ben isn't a match for Jerry, by what other means could he somehow provide a kidney that does match? Would this solution also apply to the second question above?

Donor programs often already have a mechanism for this. If a person who would like to do a directed donation does not match, they can donate a kidney into the system. This bumps the person they want to donate to up to the top of the donor list, so that they get the next kidney of their own blood type. It's not a perfect system, but it is one way for someone to help a loved one (or, I suppose, someone they have harmed) even if they don't match.

-Would it matter who started the fight?

Maybe? That's a difficult question. Even if Jerry started the fight, your scenario places Ben as the person who escalated it to the point that internal injuries were caused.

Maybe if Jerry had escalated it, and then he was the one who got hurt more, Ben would have less of an obligation to help. After all, at that point, he was truly just defending himself.

-What if Ben hadn't hit Jerry, but accidentally caused this damage to Robbins, an innocent bystander? Would Ben be solely responsible for a replacement kidney, or would Jerry bear some level of responsibility as well?

That's a difficult question as well. It would really come down to the particulars of the fight, I think. Was Ben an equal party to the fight? Or was he trying to defend himself and accidentally hurt someone else?

-What if Ben caused this injury to Jerry but by pure accident, and not as part of a fight? (Like a car accident, for example)

With only that information, I'd still think that Ben should donate if he could. Of course, the strength of that feeling would probably depend on the particulars of the accident and both mens' lives. If Ben was driving recklessly and caused the accident, I'd say he was morally more responsible for doing so than if it were a freak accident or Jerry was the one who caused it.

And there are always other considerations. For instance, what if Ben has young children or an ailing parent or someone else depending on him and doesn't feel that he can risk the surgery or take the time off? I couldn't really fault him for such a decision, even if I felt that I would make a different one.

I haven't fully decided how I feel about all of those questions, so until I do I'll just ask, what do you guys think? Can a case be made for involuntary organ donation in a scenario like this?

Not involuntary, no. But I do think the case can be made that one should feel obligated to help as much as one can in some of these situations - including by donating one's own organ.

Morally, I would say yes. But I wouldn't advocate changing the law so that he would be forced or coerced into doing so.


This is the part I'm sort of on the fence about. On the one hand, I shouldn't, as a Christian, follow the "Eye for an eye" mentality, but at the same time we live in a society where we have this sort of idea that everything has to compensated for, usually with dollars. In a scenario like mine Ben would almost certainly be prosecuted for a criminal offense, only to be sued in civil court as well and Jerry would be awarded "compensation."

Well, my thinking is that if we must have compensation of some kind, then we need to either dispense with the criminal phase of the punishment for Ben, or expand our idea of what counts as compensation, or both.


I'd consider him even more of an asshole if he didn't apologize and offer up one of his own.


I'd say that, but also that it tilts my opinion a bit more to the side of involuntarily being made to give up a kidney, since presumably he'd know that this was a possible outcome when he launched the attack.


I'm not a big fan of the death penalty as it is. I certainly don't think it should be imposed through organ donation.


Same here, although I don't know if I'd be categorically opposed to taking Ben's heart to save Jerry BEFORE Jerry dies, as opposed to the system in some states where Jerry dies slowly in a hospital, Ben gets convicted of murder, and gets put to death anyway long after the point where it even matters anymore.


Donor programs often already have a mechanism for this. If a person who would like to do a directed donation does not match, they can donate a kidney into the system. This bumps the person they want to donate to up to the top of the donor list, so that they get the next kidney of their own blood type. It's not a perfect system, but it is one way for someone to help a loved one (or, I suppose, someone they have harmed) even if they don't match.

I did not know that. Very cool.


Maybe? That's a difficult question. Even if Jerry started the fight, your scenario places Ben as the person who escalated it to the point that internal injuries were caused.

Maybe if Jerry had escalated it, and then he was the one who got hurt more, Ben would have less of an obligation to help. After all, at that point, he was truly just defending himself.


Amazing how muddy the waters get, isn't it? Maybe that's why our current system has no provisions for it... Impossible to truly judge...

But in terms of ethics I'd say it really only matters about intent, since theoretically such catastrophic damage could be inflicted with bare fists... But I don't know. Still undecided...


That's a difficult question as well. It would really come down to the particulars of the fight, I think. Was Ben an equal party to the fight? Or was he trying to defend himself and accidentally hurt someone else?


Can you imagine that trial? Yeesh. I'd hate to be the judge making that call.

I'm undecided on that too, since in this hypothetical scenario, nobody meant to hurt Robbins... So if we're going to say there's a moral obligation to give Robbins a kidney, then on some level we'd have to decide a lot of basics like, do we blame the person who started the fight? On te one who escalated the level of violence? On whoever was more drunk?


With only that information, I'd still think that Ben should donate if he could. Of course, the strength of that feeling would probably depend on the particulars of the accident and both mens' lives. If Ben was driving recklessly and caused the accident, I'd say he was morally more responsible for doing so than if it were a freak accident or Jerry was the one who caused it.

This one, to me, feels a lot like the innocent third party from the above example. If it's truly an accident then we either have to dispense with the idea of intent, or acknowledge that accidents just happen and while Ben might not be morally obligated to give a kidney, it might still be considered the 'right' thing to do on a lesser level.


And there are always other considerations. For instance, what if Ben has young children or an ailing parent or someone else depending on him and doesn't feel that he can risk the surgery or take the time off? I couldn't really fault him for such a decision, even if I felt that I would make a different one.


Damn good point.


Not involuntary, no. But I do think the case can be made that one should feel obligated to help as much as one can in some of these situations - including by donating one's own organ.

Would you consider it fair to offset some part of the criminal or civil penalty to encourage this? I think it would, although many might say it's unfair, that somehow Ben is getting out of prison time because he was smart enough to go for a kidney and not something more critical.

Well could make it that murder victims organs aren't used to discourage this. Or just rip out the organ if this is found to be the case.

Murder victims generally end up in morgues pending a post mortem. I can't see their organs being terribly useful.

This is the part I'm sort of on the fence about. On the one hand, I shouldn't, as a Christian, follow the "Eye for an eye" mentality, but at the same time we live in a society where we have this sort of idea that everything has to compensated for, usually with dollars. In a scenario like mine Ben would almost certainly be prosecuted for a criminal offense, only to be sued in civil court as well and Jerry would be awarded "compensation."

Well, my thinking is that if we must have compensation of some kind, then we need to either dispense with the criminal phase of the punishment for Ben, or expand our idea of what counts as compensation, or both.

Hmmm. I don't really see a problem with having both criminal prosecution and civil compensation. I do tend to think that civil compensation should generally be restricted to monetary means, though. Of course, I could see where we might include the possibility of other forms of compensation. For instance, if you graffiti someone's wall, I could see you either choosing to pay to have it cleaned or cleaning it yourself....

In a case like this, you could either pay for someone's extended medical care until a suitable donor was found or you could be the donor yourself.

And I do think, whether in a criminal case or a civil one, actions you have personally taken to try and make amends should be taken into account.

I'd say that, but also that it tilts my opinion a bit more to the side of involuntarily being made to give up a kidney, since presumably he'd know that this was a possible outcome when he launched the attack.

I just can't bring myself to think that anyone - even a violent criminal - should be forced to give up a part of his body. I may think he should volunteer to do it and I may, whether I want to or not, condemn him for not doing it. But I can't bring myself to advocate that kind of force.

Same here, although I don't know if I'd be categorically opposed to taking Ben's heart to save Jerry BEFORE Jerry dies, as opposed to the system in some states where Jerry dies slowly in a hospital, Ben gets convicted of murder, and gets put to death anyway long after the point where it even matters anymore.

The case would have to be rather different from the one you've described to result in a 1st degree murder charge and conviction, I think. But even in that case, can we condemn someone to death when they have not yet gone through a trial by jury and sentencing? Is it really a good idea to short circuit the process like that?

Amazing how muddy the waters get, isn't it? Maybe that's why our current system has no provisions for it... Impossible to truly judge...

There are always issues like that, I think. You can take just about any moral issue that someone sees as black and white and then turn it grey by adding in a few new considerations that very well might be a part of any real-life situation. This is why there are very rarely black and white answers to these questions. Unless you know the exact situation, it's hard to make a full determination (and it's often hard even then).

But in terms of ethics I'd say it really only matters about intent, since theoretically such catastrophic damage could be inflicted with bare fists... But I don't know. Still undecided...

Intent is important, but I don't know if it's the end of the discussion. Personally, I'd feel morally obligated to help even if I caused the damage accidentally.

Of course, I'd likely feel morally obligated to help if I just knew the person who needed an organ and I had nothing to do with causing it, so I don't know if I'm the best source on that count.

I'm undecided on that too, since in this hypothetical scenario, nobody meant to hurt Robbins... So if we're going to say there's a moral obligation to give Robbins a kidney, then on some level we'd have to decide a lot of basics like, do we blame the person who started the fight? On te one who escalated the level of violence? On whoever was more drunk?

Maybe we blame both unless one of them clearly started it? And we try to level out the compensation on both sides? Maybe one of them matches and gives an organ and the other pays for the medical bills associated?

I don't know. That'd be an odd situation.

This one, to me, feels a lot like the innocent third party from the above example. If it's truly an accident then we either have to dispense with the idea of intent, or acknowledge that accidents just happen and while Ben might not be morally obligated to give a kidney, it might still be considered the 'right' thing to do on a lesser level.

Hmmm. I don't really draw a distinction between the "right" thing to do and moral obligation. The distinctions I draw are more along the lines of how strongly obligated someone should feel. In the case of deliberate damage, the obligation should be very strong. In the case of reckless behavior causing accidental damage, it should still be strong but less so. In the case of a true accident, someone might not feel an obligation at all, but I think I still would.

That sort of thing.

Would you consider it fair to offset some part of the criminal or civil penalty to encourage this? I think it would, although many might say it's unfair, that somehow Ben is getting out of prison time because he was smart enough to go for a kidney and not something more critical.

I don't know that it should be standardized, but I would expect a judge or jury to take such things into account. Someone who has voluntarily tried to make amends should see a lesser criminal or civil penalty - as they've already taken some responsibility for their actions.

Can we 'ave your liver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tmLvzubP3I)

had to be done

As for the question. No I don't think you should compel someone to donate organs, sanctity of the human body and all that. I favour an opt out rather than an opt in system but when it comes down to it I'm against cutting people up against their will.

Why should Ben receive an additional fine just because his kidney matches? Seems like punishment based on genetics to me.
Maybe so. But it's more of an extension of the "Ben pays for Jerry's Damages" thing than punishment, I think - if Ben doesn't want to give up a kidney, then the administrative difficulties of finding a donor become a lot more complex, and Ben, as the arbitrator both of the original offence and the kidney provision, would need to fit a bill considerably greater than if he had nothing to do with finding the kidney to transplant.

Anybody else suddenly want some ice cream?

I'm more in the mood for kidney pie, actually. I can't think why.

Can we 'ave your liver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tmLvzubP3I)

had to be done

As for the question. No I don't think you should compel someone to donate organs, sanctity of the human body and all that. I favour an opt out rather than an opt in system but when it comes down to it I'm against cutting people up against their will.

Although, (And I'm playing devil's advocate here) couldn't the argument be made that if Ben thinks so little of that sanctity (Which he must, having deliberately gone after Jerry the way he did) then perhaps he forfeits the sanctity of his own?

I'm still overall undecided. I mean, I believe in the sanctity of the human body to the extent that I am categorically against torture and capital punishment, but at the same time I think there's some value to the idea that a person should be compelled to do whatever must be done to repair the damage as best they can, and an organ donation can be that solution.

On the other hand, Dempublicents1 made a good point that alluded to the practicality of that system with the length of time it takes to complete a trial. If one waits until the trial is over (as one must, in order to establish guilt.) then the victim will either already be dead or will have been treated by some alternate means, so maybe the whole point is moot to begin with.

Anybody else suddenly want some ice cream?

I was thinking of the same thing. Every time I read the names Ben and Jerry I kept think of Mint Chocolate Chip.

Although, (And I'm playing devil's advocate here) couldn't the argument be made that if Ben thinks so little of that sanctity (Which he must, having deliberately gone after Jerry the way he did) then perhaps he forfeits the sanctity of his own?

I'm still overall undecided. I mean, I believe in the sanctity of the human body to the extent that I am categorically against torture and capital punishment, but at the same time I think there's some value to the idea that a person should be compelled to do whatever must be done to repair the damage as best they can, and an organ donation can be that solution.
In all other cases there is a level of choice involved, you can't be forced to do community service so you can essentially choose to go to prison instead etc.

I don't think you can forfeit it, I'd see someone's right over their own body as inalienable.


On the other hand, Dempublicents1 made a good point that alluded to the practicality of that system with the length of time it takes to complete a trial. If one waits until the trial is over (as one must, in order to establish guilt.) then the victim will either already be dead or will have been treated by some alternate means, so maybe the whole point is moot to begin with.

When did that ever get in the way of an NSG thread?

In all other cases there is a level of choice involved, you can't be forced to do community service so you can essentially choose to go to prison instead etc.

I don't think you can forfeit it, I'd see someone's right over their own body as inalienable.


As do most people, but what I'm wondering is, why is it inalienable? I mean, we live in a country where there are such forms of punishment as death, chemical castration and even imprisonment can be argued to be a form of punishment that is against the body. (By stretching a little.) Is it really inalienable?


When did that ever get in the way of an NSG thread?

*sigh* never....

Question for your consideration:Should Ben be obligated to donate one of his own?

I believe organ donation should be compulsory regardless of fault. From a medical stand point, if everyone were required to donate organs upon death, many lives would be saved.

Now to specifically address the question. In this case, there is no way of determining whether Ben will actually be an appropriate donor for Jerry. It we assume he is, then he should be encouraged to do so and required to pay a fine.

If organ donation were compulsory, then in all likelihood someone is probably dying, or dead that has a good kidney that Jerry could use. All that would be required is for Ben, or his insurance to cover the costs of the work.

-We know that the law provides for no such penalty already so let's leave the legality out of it and concentrate only on the ethics of it, or perhaps why the law SHOULD be changed to permit it.

Yes, the law should be changed to require organ donation for the reasons I stated above.

-What if Ben caused this particular damage to the kidneys deliberately as opposed to accidentally?

Then he is still at fault and should pay the consequences. Imprisonment, rehabilitation, and if Jerry's family sees fit civil consequences as well. If the laws are changed making organ donation compulsory upon death, then Ben or his insurance should be responsible for paying the bill.

-What if the organ to be donated was not one that could be done without, such as a heart?

Again, if organ donation is compulsory then many hearts would become available. However, the life of a healthy person should not be sacrificed for another except by voluntary means. Besides there are also artificial hearts that could be used in this example.

-If Ben isn't a match for Jerry, by what other means could he somehow provide a kidney that does match? Would this solution also apply to the second question above?

In this case, monetary compensation covering the cost of the organ search, and operation should be a reasonable option.

-Would it matter who started the fight?

I do not believe who started the fight is really important, unless the damaged was simply caused by Ben defending himself. I can't think of many defensive moves Ben could do that would cause kindey damage, but I am not that fluent in unarmed combat either. But I really do not think that kidney damage is likely to be caused by fighting defensively.

-What if Ben hadn't hit Jerry, but accidentally caused this damage to Robbins, an innocent bystander? Would Ben be solely responsible for a replacement kidney, or would Jerry bear some level of responsibility as well?

All parties should be responsible for their actions. So in this case Ben and Jerry (I could really use a scoop of Chocolate at the moment) share in the responsibity.

-What if Ben caused this injury to Jerry but by pure accident, and not as part of a fight?

There is a distinct difference between a fight and a car accident. But there are still circumstances where I think Ben would be responsible. Drunk driving, reckless driving, poor vehicle maintainence are all reasons why I could see Ben being at fault, whether he actually intended to cause the damage or not. If the wreck were caused by debris in the road, then it becomes a bit more subjective, but I stand by my opinion that organ donation should be compulsory upon death. This would create far more available organs and same many more lives.

As do most people, but what I'm wondering is, why is it inalienable? I mean, we live in a country where there are such forms of punishment as death, chemical castration and even imprisonment can be argued to be a form of punishment that is against the body. (By stretching a little.) Is it really inalienable?


<---UKite

I wouldn't say imprisonment is against the body exactly, certainly not directly. In general I think the line should be drawn at the body essentially. No cutting people open/sticking things into them/etc without their consent.

As to why, I'm not sure but it seems the most logical cut off point, and I like the principle of inalienable personal rights to their own body.

Should Ben Be Obligated To Donate One Of His Own?
I don't think so. It's Ben's body, and you can't just tell him "Hey, you, give me your organs!" Even if Ben did cause damage, he shouldn't have to give up an organ unless he wants to. Someone suggested earlier that he could donate the kidney for a lesser jail time or something, that sounds good to me because he still has the choice.

what If Ben Caused This Particular Damage To The Kidneys Deliberately As Opposed To Accidentally?
It doesn't make a difference; the kidney's still screwed up.

what If The Organ To Be Donated Was Not One That Could Be Done Without, Such As A Heart?
Jerry's out of luck, then. I highly doubt Ben's going to give up his heart for less jail time, seeing as he won't be alive. However, if Jerry was to still be alive when Ben died, his organ should go to Jerry. I would hope the gov. had enough common sense to not wait around specifically for Ben's heart, but instead use the first heart available to Jerry, and if Jerry already has a new heart, Ben's heart will get to stay in his body, if not go to someone else.

Though, I think EVERYONE should give up their organs when they've died, regardless of hurting someone or not.

Would It Matter Who Started The Fight?
To me, yes, even though it would be incredibly hard to tell who started it, seeing as it'd be a he said, she said thing. I don't think Jerry should punch Ben in the face, then get his kidney damaged and demand Ben give it to him. Though both were in the wrong ,the starter shouldn't demand treatment just being they got hurt more.

what If Ben Hadn't Hit Jerry, But Accidentally Caused This Damage To Robbins, An Innocent Bystander? Would Ben Be Solely Responsible For A Replacement Kidney, Or Would Jerry Bear Some Level Of Responsibility As Well?
I think Ben would be responsible, seeing as he was the one who hit the innocent bystander.

what If Ben Caused This Injury To Jerry But By Pure Accident, And Not As Part Of A Fight? (like A Car Accident, For Example)
I still think Ben should give a kidney. Of course ,with car accident, everyone's going to point the blame at the other person, and I don't think Ben should have to give his kidney if Jerry was the one running the stoplight D:

<---UKite

I wouldn't say imprisonment is against the body exactly, certainly not directly. In general I think the line should be drawn at the body essentially. No cutting people open/sticking things into them/etc without their consent.

As to why, I'm not sure but it seems the most logical cut off point, and I like the principle of inalienable personal rights to their own body.

Seems that way to me too, but I dunno... I think a scary aspect of the question is, if we can't decide why, exactly, this is the cutoff, then it might remove some of the moral barriers to torture.