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.

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


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; s
o 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?

No comments:
Post a Comment