MovieChat Forums > Repo Men (2010) Discussion > Questions about the repossession method....

Questions about the repossession method.

When they repossess an organ, are they killing the person? Why does Remy ask if they need an ambulance, because if someone takes your heart or any other vital organ away, it will be impossible for you to continue living.

Also does that mean that Jake killed his grand dad which he admitted to when Remy asked if he had repossessed anyone close to him in the bar scene? Did RZA, the guy making the music, know that he would die if his organ was taken out?

How come this repossession method hasn't been leaked to the public if people are dying because of it? How would a company, using such methods, still exist?


When they repo, they leave the person without the organ. If they're taking a kidney ("He still has the other one") or an ear or a knee, then the person is left injured but alive. If they're taking the liver, then I would guess the person has a few hours before they're unconscious and die. And of course if they take the heart, then the victim is dead.

The "Can we arrange for medical treatment" - obviously in many of the repo cases then medical treatment could make a big difference. In the case of a heart, then it's obviously pro forma.

As for why there's no outcry - because obviously the people being repo'd are deadbeats who probably deserved it. Nothing like that would ever happen to me.

You would be amazed how many Republicans become Democrats when they get laid off during a recession...


It's legal because the person agreed to it in the start. Same reason it's legal to take a car if one is behind on the acct, no matter HOW big a burden it puts on a person.

It's the philosophy of what is the person paying for? Yes, materially the person is buying a heart, but what they are really buying is more life. Without the life saving artiforg, the persons life would be over. So the company is really just selling "borrowed time", and if a person can't pay whay they agreed to pay, it's fair for the company to take that back. Fair trumps right/ethical in any capitalistic society's legal system, and to say it's wrong/unethical could be argued in its own merit too. That's why some people didn't even fight it, like t-bone. He knew he hadn't paid, and had no moral qualm giving back what he knows he didn't pay for.