NationStates Jolt Archive

A DOCTOR who donated his kidney to his wife in 2001 now wants it back because she cheated on him and has filed for divorce.

He says it’s the organ or $US1.5 million ($2.1 million).

New York Daily News reports Richard Batista, a surgeon from Long Island in New York, gave his kidney to his wife Dawnell after two previous transplants failed. The website reports the odds of him being a match are 700,000 to 1.

Dr Batista told New York Daily News there is “no value you can put on an organ when it saves someone’s life. There is no greater feeling on this planet”.

He says he is only suing Dawnell to get to her act reasonably in the divorce case, claiming she is restricting access to their children, aged 8, 11 and 14.

"She slapped me with divorce papers when I was in surgery trying to save another person's life," he told the newspaper.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24886807-401,00.html

Brilliant.

You're late.

You can't sell organs so they have no legal value. This case is a trainwreck.

He sticks with her through all the medical issues and gives her one of his own kidneys, and then she turns around, fucks around with another man, and throws divorce papers on his face.

Sounds quite typical for most women I've ever been with.

Ungrateful

He sticks with her through all the medical issues and gives her one of his own kidneys, and then she turns around, fucks around with another man, and throws divorce papers on his face.

Sounds quite typical for most women I've ever been with.

You better believe I'm looking for a man I can marry, steal one of his kidneys, cheat on him, then divorce him.

It's every little girl's dream.

So he is willing to let his wife die purly out of spite? What a dick.

You better believe I'm looking for a man I can marry, steal one of his kidneys, cheat on him, then divorce him.

It's every little girl's dream.

See, proof!

He says he is only suing Dawnell to get to her act reasonably in the divorce case, claiming she is restricting access to their children, aged 8, 11 and 14.
Well, this puts the whole thing under another light, doesn't it.

Anyway, what a ...

So he is willing to let his wife die purly out of spite? What a dick.

She is technically not his wife anymore with the divorce pending and all.

Besides, it says right in the article that he's doing it in an attempt to make her act reasonable.

Personally as a judge most cases of one person's infidelity without good reasoning would be rather open and shut for me. They get what they still own, the rest stays with the partner who didn't back out of the deal. But I guess I have been cheated on so many times that I am biased?

The thing about the kidney is that it is a gift, not a commodity. You cannot put a price on it. You cannot sell it. There is law surrounding gifts to spouses and what happens to those gifts during a divorce, but the nature of this gift is such that it would be impossible to return it.

I think the doctor may not be at fault, but he is a bit foolish for giving a gift to someone who does not value it as such, and then expecting that he can then transfer that gift obligation into some sort of obligation of commodity exchange as defined by the market economy that guides such things as divorce.

The thing about the kidney is that it is a gift, not a commodity. You cannot put a price on it. You cannot sell it. There is law surrounding gifts to spouses and what happens to those gifts during a divorce, but the nature of this gift is such that it would be impossible to return it.

I think the doctor may not be at fault, but he is a bit foolish for giving a gift to someone who does not value it as such, and then expecting that he can then transfer that gift obligation into some sort of obligation of commodity exchange as defined by the market economy that guides such things as divorce.

But, it would set a new standard for low! Isn't that what this world is quickly becoming about?

But, it would set a new standard for low! Isn't that what this world is quickly becoming about?

You call it low. I call it creative.

But, it would set a new standard for low! Isn't that what this world is quickly becoming about?

I don't understand what you think the problem is.

I don't understand what you think the problem is.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the trend in American society today seems to be swinging more towards 'the worst morally possible thing we can do to get what we want'. Its like going back to the beginning of the industrial revolution where the most unscrupulous was the most successful.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the trend in American society today seems to be swinging more towards 'the worst morally possible thing we can do to get what we want'. Its like going back to the beginning of the industrial revolution where the most unscrupulous was the most successful.

I don,t see how this story is an example of such behaviour. Do you think the husband or the wife has done something wrong? Judging by your somewhat misogynistic rants, I assume you're blaming the woman for something. Perhaps you could elaborate on what she did wrong.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what she did wrong.

His issue with her seems to hinge on the fact that she was unfaithful during their marriage. Specific to the kidney, I'm not so sure.

I don,t see how this story is an example of such behaviour. Do you think the husband or the wife has done something wrong? Judging by your somewhat misogynistic rants, I assume you're blaming the woman for something. Perhaps you could elaborate on what she did wrong.

They are both wrong, and I'm just in a bad mood.

The woman is wrong for using the children they had in the marriage as leverage; she is also in the wrong for violating the marriage contract. Since the article is not clear, I am assuming her infidelity is the cause of the divorce proceedings in the first place which in my opinion should put her in no position to bargain unless I am wrong and they had some kind of understanding about that. If I am not, she also violated the trust of someone who clearly cared for her (as he was willing to let people chop out his body parts for her and all) which is a really fucking despicable thing to do in my mind.

The man is wrong because he's using the fact that she has one of his kidneys as a reason to get money from her once the divorce is final; or will try and force the courts to remove the aforementioned organ.

Its all so very low.

His issue with her seems to hinge on the fact that she was unfaithful during their marriage. Specific to the kidney, I'm not so sure.

It should be more clear now.

They are both wrong, and I'm just in a bad mood.

The woman is wrong for using the children they had in the marriage as leverage;

Considering how little we know about their divorce proceeding and the role each of them played as parents, I don't see how you know enough about what's going on that it would make you angry.

she is also in the wrong for violating the marriage contract. Since the article is not clear, I am assuming her infidelity is the cause of the divorce proceedings in the first place which in my opinion should put her in no position to bargain unless I am wrong and they had some kind of understanding about that.

Adultery has been around longer than walking upright. Deal with it. She did. I can't bring myself to care about it.

If I am not, she also violated the trust of someone who clearly cared for her (as he was willing to let people chop out his body parts for her and all) which is a really fucking despicable thing to do in my mind.

It was a gift. What kind of payment do you expect from a gift? None. That's why it's a gift. You seem to think she should pay back her gifts. Should she also pay her parents back for raising her? Send a bill to her kids for her time and expenses?

The man is wrong because he's using the fact that she has one of his kidneys as a reason to get money from her once the divorce is final; or will try and force the courts to remove the aforementioned organ.

Its all so very low.

Actually, he is a doctor so we can assume that he intelligent enough about medical law to know that he won't get either money or his kidney back. So we can assume that he is doing this for other purposes. Therefore your judgement about his motives is probably wrong.

The only low thing I see is the deception involved in adultery, a very common thing and not one to get annoyed about, or perhaps the restriction of access in terms of the children, but we know very little about that.

I would think the precedent set by Roe, Griswold, and Lawrence would kill that sort of thing as being patently unconstitutional in that the courts can't really force someone to undergo surgery. Right to privacy, and all that.

I would think the precedent set by Roe, Griswold, and Lawrence would kill that sort of thing as being patently unconstitutional in that the courts can't really force someone to undergo surgery. Right to privacy, and all that.

Saw him on TV with his lawyer this morning - what they're asking for is a million dollars for the kidney.

A million dollars is not surgery.

Oh that's so tragic. :(

Considering how little we know about their divorce proceeding and the role each of them played as parents, I don't see how you know enough about what's going on that it would make you angry.

The implication that she is using them as a means to gain leverage is more than enough to piss me off, I have had to deal with it for years with my own two parents, who tried to use me and my siblings for various dubious things.



Adultery has been around longer than walking upright. Deal with it. She did. I can't bring myself to care about it.


Because you don't does not mean I don't.


It was a gift. What kind of payment do you expect from a gift? None. That's why it's a gift. You seem to think she should pay back her gifts. Should she also pay her parents back for raising her? Send a bill to her kids for her time and expenses?

Now your being ludicrous and trying to treat me like a troll. Its the violation of the trust I see as the problem, he trusted her and she took it and twisted it like a kitten does a ball of yarn; I hate to see that, ever, ever.


Actually, he is a doctor so we can assume that he intelligent enough about medical law to know that he won't get either money or his kidney back. So we can assume that he is doing this for other purposes. Therefore your judgement about his motives is probably wrong.

I stated previously I know he knows, but he is still using that fact in an attempt to gain some kind of leverage, which is pitiful and selfish.


The only low thing I see is the deception involved in adultery, a very common thing and not one to get annoyed about, or perhaps the restriction of access in terms of the children, but we know very little about that.

All the above, which is to me just one example of how the whole damn world is behaving like a bunch of petty little children.

I applaud this man, the woman cheated on him and won't let him see his kids. He's fighting back and he's fighting dirty. I love it.

The implication that she is using them as a means to gain leverage is more than enough to piss me off, I have had to deal with it for years with my own two parents, who tried to use me and my siblings for various dubious things.

Why are you assuming that these people are acting like your parents?

Because you don't does not mean I don't.

If you want to choose to be pissed off about what others do with their genitals, go ahead. But don't pretend it's a symptom of the impending breakdown of civilisation.

Now your being ludicrous and trying to treat me like a troll. Its the violation of the trust I see as the problem, he trusted her and she took it and twisted it like a kitten does a ball of yarn; I hate to see that, ever, ever.

Giving a gift has nothing to do with trust. Why are you tying trust into an issue about a gift? They're two different things.

I stated previously I know he knows, but he is still using that fact in an attempt to gain some kind of leverage, which is pitiful and selfish.

What's pitiful and selfish about it? If I use leverage to free hostages, then that is a moral application of using leverage, so we know that using leverage is not inherently evil. What is it about this specific case that bothers you?

All the above, which is to me just one example of how the whole damn world is behaving like a bunch of petty little children.

You seem to be getting very worked up about this. And you seem to be focusing on her 'violation of trust'. I'll leave you to that. Enjoy your negative emotional reaction to some woman you've never met and your possibly unwarranted assumptions abouther behaviour.

I'm more interested in the fact that the organ has gone from a gift to a commodity, solely through the process of the transformation of the protagonists' emotional relationship.

You better believe I'm looking for a man I can marry, steal one of his kidneys, cheat on him, then divorce him.

It's every little girl's dream.

hmmm.... would you accept another organ? say... an apendex?

hmmm.... would you accept another organ? say... an apendex?

I don't know, I've never found much use for the one I have already. I'll settle for a lung. Or possibly one of your eyes.

I don't know, I've never found much use for the one I have already. I'll settle for a lung. Or possibly one of your eyes.

hmmm... not a lung. I expect that to be used alot. ;)

which Eye?

hmmm... not a lung. I expect that to be used alot. ;)

which Eye?

Hmm...whichever of mine packs in first, I suppose.

I guess he should of waited awhile before putting his organ in her >.>

SNIP

so thats why women marry doctors! (seriously though what is it with doctors wives:confused:)