Humanities desk
< September 28	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 29[edit]

Organ theft in China?[edit]

Someone told me that in China, unsuspecting people have fallen victim to organ theft in the following manner: they're walking in the streets when someone (most likely a stranger) gives them something to smell which renders them unconscious; by the time they regain consciousness, one or more of their organs have been stolen from within their bodies. How frequently do such things actually happen? 96.250.205.62 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a variation on an old urban legend, described in general in organ theft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, despite what you see on TV, there is no such thing as a substance that will render a person unconscious by taking one or two whiffs of it. Our article on chloroform says "It takes at least five minutes of inhaling an item soaked in chloroform to render a person unconscious." Diethyl ether works even more slowly. CodeTalker (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things on fictional TV shows are time-constrained. They can't take five minutes of precious air time to subdue a victim... unless that length of time is important to he story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "chloroform rag knocks you out instantly" myth may actually vastly predate TV: [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always find it rather amusing when a TV show or movie shows the bad guy grabbing his victim from behind and holding a chloroform soaked rag up to the victims face, with HIS OWN face inches away from the rag. If chloroform really acted this way, you'd expect the perpetrator to at least get a little woozy. CodeTalker (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few whiffs of a baseball bat should do the trick. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organ theft in Kosovo involves summary execution, and the use of organs from people being executed in China similarly leaves no one to tell the tale. I can think of no obvious reason why someone engaging in such a heinous crime would go to great trouble and expense to ensure the donor would live to point the finger at them. Wnt (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are referring to Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, the procedure you described seems to be unfamiliar to me. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What embarassing thing did the US Senate do in 1983?[edit]

When the Senate overrode President Obama's veto of the 9/11 litigation bill, press Secretary Josh Earnest called it “the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983.”[2] The linked article lists various other embarrassing things the Senate has done since then, but gives no clue about what they did in 1983 that Josh Earnest was referring to. Any ideas? Thanks. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earnest was responding to a reporter who told him Wednesday’s vote was the most overwhelming since a 95-0 veto override vote in 1983. In that year, the Senate overrode President Ronald Reagan’s veto of a land bill to give a few acres to six retired couples who paid for it, but later learned that it was still government property because of a surveying error. [3] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I dunno about the 9/11 bill, but the bill Reagan vetoed sounds like the type of thing that would have had strong popular support. So it's surprising that Josh Earnest called it embarrassing, unless he meant the White House rather than the Senate was the one being embarrassed. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The embarrassing thing the Senate is going to do next is to write new legislation to counter the issues that Obama raised in his objections to the bill.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the reasoning behind the veto are here ~~[5]. (If the link doesn't work, try either manually adjusting your referrer or search on Google [6] and clicking the link instead.)~~ edit: better link [7]. Note that it was a private surveying error was, not a government one. I don't know what Josh Earnest meant but note that quite a few people would argue that legislators aren't supposed to make fundamentally flawed laws even if they enjoy overwhelming popular support. Actually that's often one of the arguments made for representative democracy rather than direct democracy. Josh Earnest may very well feel the same applies for both. (Although the perceived flaws in the Saudi Arabian law seem to be wider reaching. And in addition there's the additional argument that the current law is useless anyway since the executive can simply asked the courts to stay proceedings if they can provide sufficient evidence they are in good faith negotiations and renew this indefinitely if they keep having the evidence.) P.S. To be clear, I'm not arguing either law is fundamentally flawed and don't think this is the right place to debate the merits of either laws. Simply pointing out that there seems enough reasoning behind the rejection of both that someone may feel that way. Nil Einne (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, meritorious or not, the 1983 bill affected just a few people and a small amount of property, so didn't have far-reaching consequences like various other Senate acts do, so Josh Earnest's description seems overblown. The govt had been collecting property tax on the disputed land for 40 years and didn't sound willing to pay it back, so they wanted it both ways. The article adverse possession#United_States discusses this situation though it leaves a lot of parameters unspecified. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link? The claim was made it would have far reaching consequences and would ultimately indirectly affect many people and a lot of property. The consequences of the Saudi Arabian law are unclear, but it's likewise claimed it would be similar (albeit internationally rather than simply nationally). I was under the impression the US federal government didn't generally collect property tax. Am I mistaken? In terms of comparison to other laws, the numbers of people voting for the bill seemed to be a key part of the point. Are there other recent laws with such overwhelming vote in favour where the executive potentially felt the law was fundamentally flawed with no redeeming features and was simply made due to populism? The closest thing I'm aware of are stuff such as DOMA, but in those cases the vote wasn't so overwhelming and the executive supported the law, and it was also argued the laws were needed to prevent worse laws. There is also the Patriot Act, but in that case besides having the support of the executive, opponents generally suggest some sort of moral panic, perhaps similar to the interment of Japanese during WW2 rather than just a dumb populist move. (Note the wording quoting above was embarassing not terrible, harmful, or any other such words.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question About the Offset Rule in Tort Law[edit]

If a man who has a disabled wife (a disabled wife whom he spends a lot of money on--thus straining the family budget) and whose disabled wife is killed by, say, some reckless driver sues this driver for emotional distress as a result of his wife's death, could the judge in this case use the financial benefits of the death of this man's wife (specifically less strain on the family budget) in order to reduce the amount of financial compensation that this man will get from this reckless driver (for emotional distress as a result of the death of this man's wife)?

Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about wrongful death claims but regarding the specifics, it will vary by jurisdiction and we can't give legal advice here. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like such an argument would be prohibited by the collateral source rule. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that there was a tobacco lawsuit somewhere in I think eastern Europe where the manufacturers argued that the shorter lifespan of smokers reduced their overall health care costs. (I am not asserting that's true, though I don't have the data to prove it false) I don't think they managed to get that idea considered, though. Wnt (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the report titled: Public Finance Balance of Smoking in the Czech Republic. It was not used in a lawsuit, but was a private report never meant to be seen by the public. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different jurisdictions have different ways of addressing this, so it's not going to be possible to give a general answer. However, the claim for wrongful death typically would belong to the decedent's estate and, in many cases, is measured by the decedent's future earning capacity. That would be offset by the decedent's cost of care and, on these facts, would likely be zero. If the surviving spouse has a claim for emotional distress (which not all jurisdictions would allow), that would be a separate claim. Of course, since this is an emotional claim, the defendant could argue that the measure of damages should take into account the fact that the decedent's condition was highly stressful (including financial stresses), and the surviving spouse will no longer be subject to those stresses. John M Baker (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting, though, that judges/courts have continuously used the emotional joys of having a child to offset the financial costs of child-raising; thus, why apply different criteria in the situation in my question above? Futurist110 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]