I Want My Kidney Back

Typically in a divorce, both parties may desire to receive something after the divorce is final, such as money or sole possession of their children. Then there's Dr. Richard Batista. He wants his kidney back.

On June 18, 2001, Richard Batista donated his kidney to his wife Dawnell after she had two failed transplants. Richard Batista says that this period of time his marriage "was on the rocks because of the strain of his wife’s medical issues". Supposedly within 18 months to 2 years after the transplant, his wife began to have an affair. Subsequently, his wife filed for a divorce in July 2005. Richard Batista claims that his wife prevented him from seeing his children. Yet instead of asking for sole custody of their three children (ages 14, 11, and 8), Richard Batista wants his kidney or its estimated value of $1.5 million. He described the day after his wife's surgery as "It was unbelievable; I was walking on a cloud. To this day I would still do it again," despite making this into a public case. If he would "still do it again", why does he want the organ back? An organ that he donated as a gift of life to his wife? There is something wrong with this logic.
But the real question is: Is it possible for him to get back his kidney? In this article, two medical ethicists Arthur Caplan and Robert Veatch made some key statements in regards to this case.
1. It is illegal to exchange an organ for something of value. In the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act of 1987 it states that "Federal law expressly prohibits the sale of human tissue with the exception of blood, sperm, or human eggs"
2. Donating an organ is a gift and it is illegal to ask for something back once you have given it.
3. Finally, the most important part, she was given this kidney in order to save her life. So by taking it out, she would have to go on dialysis or she would die. Therefore, no surgeons would actually perform this operation and no court would allow it.
There are clearly two sides to this. There is the heartbroken man that lost his wife to an affair and is allegedly unable to see his children AFTER donating his kidney to his wife so that she can live a normal life. All he wants is compensation for the troubles that he is going through. Perhaps it really is not the kidney that he wants, aware that she would never give it back for fear of death. Maybe he just wants the money as something to end all ties, to feel as though he is getting something out of all the hurt he has been through. But then there is what Michael K. believes on his blog. Although definitely vulgar in language, I have to agree with his point of view. He quoted Dr. Richard Batista and how there is "no deeper pain than getting betrayed by the person you devoted your life to". Okay, you saved her life, she cheated on you, affairs are bad. Understood. Then Michael wrote "Yes, and the pain she will suffer from losing a kidney will be totally bearable. All she has to do is pop a Tylenol, put a warm compress on her back and walk it off." That is the main point of this case. How in the world does Richard Batista think that this will end? What if she actually decides to get that kidney removed? Will he stick it back in his body? Give it its own shelf in his house? "Hey kids, look! That's my kidney, I gave it to your mother, then I made a big fuss over it and got it back! Pretty, right?" Overall, this will end in Dr. Richard Batista getting a bad reputation, getting laughed at in court and his wife enjoying life with his kidney. As it should end.