BATISTA, WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?

Now, as he ruefully regrets the gift of life which he gave to his object of affection, his former wife; did this love-reject do what any other person in the circumstance would do for a loved one? Also is his current demand for restitution of his kidney reasonable?

Dr. Richard Batista, 49, (right) of Ronkonkoma, a prominent vascular surgeon at Nassau University Medical Center, Long Island, New York is demanding the return of a kidney he donated to his estranged wife, Dawnell Batista, 44 (below) or in the alternative, the payment of $1.5 million dollars in lieu of the kidney, as a reasonable price or value for the said body-part. The couple is currently embroiled in a messy divorce.

Whether a kidney is a returnable gift or marital property or an asset which can be returned or for which there is a price tag for purposes of distribution following a divorce decree, will constitute part of the litigation in this messy divorce. If the court agrees with Dr. Batista that his interest in the donated kidney is still subsisting, it will then take necessary steps to determine what would be a fair price for the kidney for purposes of determining the reasonableness of the $1.5million dollars being asked as an option of keeping the kidney?

Admitted that it is unethical and illegal to sell or use an organ as a bargain for instrument or exchange it for anything of value; under Dr. Batista's circumstance, is it possible to infer that his donation was not freely made? The question should be, why did he do it? Because she was his wife, a good inference is that the donation was conditioned on her remaining the object of his affection, period! Dr. Batista was one (1) out of 700,000 whose kidney was a match to his ex-wife's; so it was a very expensive and invaluable piece of body-part to just give away. Were Dawnell not his wife, would the doctor have made the donation? The answer is obviously NO! So if the condition subsequent to the kidney donation fails, then there is no longer a subsisting valid donation; hence the subject matter donated must be returned to the rightful owner, which in this case is Dr. Give Me Back My Kidney? It is also admitted that donating an organ is considered a gift but it should equally be noted that some gifts are conditional-gifts; which in this case, by necessary implication, was subsequent to her continued love and affection. Dr. Batista gave to his better-half his body part first because she was his wife (condition-precedent) and secondly because she will continue to remain his wife (condition-subsequent). So when a condition attached to a gift fails for lack of performance or occurrence, the whole gift fails as in this case.

Icheoku says, it appears this claim is not necessarily about a kidney but about a grieving husband who is emotionally having a great deal of difficultly coping with the loss of a wife's love and affection. He wants the world to partake in his heart's agony and hear him out before it is too late. From some statements credited to Dr. Batista, the doctor appears to be a man who is really agonising about losing the love of his life. Icheoku advises the good doctor who is out of luck with love and also appears to be irretrievably out of his kidney, to just calm down and move on with his life, rather than be tempted to join the retinue of the Scott Petersons of this world. Love is impetuous, hurts, and most times does not think properly. According to this whining doctor, "there is no deeper pain you can ever express than betrayal from someone who you loved and devoted your whole life to. I saved her life and then, to be betrayed like this, is unfathomable; It's incomprehensible, but the pain is unbearable! I feel humbled and betrayed and disregarded; this divorce is killing me.” It would appear that Dr. Batista is trying but woefully failing, to cope with his life of a broken heart. At the same time, it is quite obvious from his quest for a pound of flesh, that he is determined not to let his cheating ex-wife go with his healthy kidney!

The once-happy couple met two decades ago when Dr. Batista was a resident and Dawnell was a training nurse at North Shore Hospital. They were married in August 1990, and have three daughters celebrating with a lavish Long Island reception, and were soon living in a $1 million Massapequa home.

Dr. Batista's kidney was the third kidney Dawnell would receive; as a child, she received a kidney from her father which failed and later another one from her brother which also failed as her body rejected both kidneys. Then it was Dr. Batista's turn to donate his kidney which proved to be the kidney the doctor ordered. With a match of 1-in-700,000 Dr Batista gladly donated one of his kidney, allowing Dawnell to skip a waiting list of 6,748 people awaiting kidneys transplant in the State of New York according to data from the New York Organ Network. The transplant of the contentious kidney was successfully performed at University of Minnesota Medical Center on June 28, 2001. Dawnell Batista survived the transplant, but their marriage lasted only four more years thereafter, as Dawnell filed for divorce in July 2005.

According to the narrative, Dawnell Batista viewed the kidney as a new lease on her life. She returned to school to earn a master's degree in nursing and took up karate as a hobby. Icheoku asks, but why karate? Was she an abused wife trying to equip herself against further abuse by learning the act of self-defense, martial arts? Continuing, after an injury suffered while trying to earn her black belt, she began physical therapy - which evolved into an affair with her therapist. Icheoku adds, and she is a nurse? According to Dr. Batista, "this affair put a hole in my heart that still exists. To this day, I'm a man of pride. To be betrayed that way, humiliated - I can't even began to say."
One other interested observer rated Dr. Batista's chances at recovering his donated kidney at somewhere between impossible and completely impossible. Icheoku strongly disagrees with one other analyst who is of the opinion that when you give something, you can't get it back; but says, that certain gifts are conditioned upon the occurrence or performance of certain act. So when there is a failed performance or non-occurrence of the act or event then such gift fails as may rightly be the case with the kidney here.

Icheoku says, Dr. Batista is entitled to his kidney. The court should order Dawnell to give Dr Batista back his kidney as the bargained for love and affection has gone out through the window, with the winds. His intention in making the donation in the first place was to bequeath his body-part to someone he loved and believed was part of him; so now that the center can no longer hold, to each should be his own. Without his gift, Dawnell would probably be dead by now, so she would not have had the opportunity to even jump the fence of Dr. Batista's love. So who is wrongfully benefiting from the failed bargain but DAWNELL who is trying to reap where she did not sow! Icheoku says, this re-echos the popular aphorism, only fools fall in love, and Dr. Richard Batista?