Not the person you're asking, but interesting question so I figured I'll chime in.

On a purely theoretical level, I would accept a law that any person who attacked another with intent to harm had to donate non-vital organs provided doing so can be reasonably expected not to kill them. If they are not a match, still donate the organ to replace use of another organ that was a match.

However, on a practical level, I wouldn't support such a law.

I don't think that an accident that caused organ damage or failure should be treated this way. Accidents are unfortunate, and can carry severe punishments (say, speeding that causes a major wreck or even a DUI, which is not "intent to kill or injure" but still often carries a prison sentence if it causes death or severe injury), but it is unfair to remove your organs without your consent for something you didn't mean to do.

One could argue that a DUI is intent to harm - but it just gets dicier from there. Does speeding mean intent to harm, and if so, does not paying attention? What if you were distracted by a wasp that flew in through the winder and you're allergic to wasp bites and you hit a pedestrian while fearing for your own life and not meaning to cause any harm at all?

Punishment should be doled out accordingly, but there are so many nuances that I think it would be inappropriate to take someone's organs when they meant no harm. Then we're left with only "definitely intended to cause damage" cases, and it would be difficult to prove such intent without reasonable doubt unless the perpetrator says, "I hit him where I thought his kidneys were in hopes of causing organ damage".

And even with that, we have botched trials. You can be released from prison after you've proven that you're innocent, but you can't get your organs and emotional toll back. Even though you can live a fulfilling life on one kidney, it's a serious medical procedure to donate, and your life going forward will absolutely be affected. Do you get your kidney back, or do you get someone else's donated kidney, or just a financial payment to call it a day?

I think it would be essentially unenforceable and too ethically ambiguous to become a real law.