1. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky is the court of last resort in that state. The Strunk decision is now Kentucky law. Does the decision make mental institutions a storehouse of human bodies available for distribution to the more productive members of society whenever the state decides that someone’s need outweighs the danger to the incompetent?
2. Where no legal cases have a direct bearing on the issue of a case, should the court turn to other disciplines for authority?
3. What ethical considerations do you think convinced the dissenters in this case to oppose the operation on Jerry Strunk?

Osborne, Judge
The specific question involved upon this appeal is: Does a court of equity have power to permit a kidney to be removed from an incompetent ward of the state upon petition of his committee, who is also his mother, for the purpose of being transplanted into the body of his brother, who is dying of a fatal kidney disease? We are of the opinion it does. The facts of the case are as follows: Arthur L. Strunk, 54 years of age, and Ava Strunk, 52 years of age, of Williamstown, Kentucky, are the parents of two sons. Tommy Strunk is 28 years of age, married, an employee of the Penn State Railroad and a part-time student at the University of Cincinnati. Tommy is now suffering from chronic glomerus nephritis, a fatal kidney disease. He is now being kept alive by frequent treatment on an artificial kidney, a procedure that cannot be continued much longer.