Give me back my kidney, or pay the consequences!
We’ve become inured to the spectacle of bitter public divorce battles over assets or children, but how about body parts?
Richard Batista is demanding, as part of a divorce settlement, that his estranged wife Dawnell return the kidney that he donated to her. This is something new, and the press has been busy analyzing the implications. Discussion has centered on the ethics of organ donation and the commodification of body parts. They are missing the point. This has nothing to do with ethics or money; it is about spousal abuse. Specifically, this is an example of the all too common phenomenon of abusive, controlling men trying to continue abusing and controlling the women who leave them.
There is neither ethical nor legal justification for demanding the kidney or compensation. An organ donation is a gift. We have specifically prohibited the selling of organs for just this reason. Ethically, we believe that the only acceptable reason for donating an organ to another person is altruism. You give the organ because you want the other person to get it. What happens after that is irrelevant. If you cannot sue to get your kidney back because you now have a medical need for it, you certainly do not have grounds to sue to get it back simply because you are angry with the recipient.
This case is not about the commodification of organs, either. No only do we prohibit the selling of organs, but we hold both the donor and recipient harmless in the action. The donor cannot sue the recipient for the costs associated with the donation, and the recipient cannot sue the donor if the donor had an undiagnosed medical problem that was transmitted with the organ.
Experts in both law and medical ethics are in agreement that there is no legal basis for Batista’s demand, and the chance that it will be granted is nil. So why did Batista do it? He did it for revenge.
Batista has publicly acknowledge that this is nothing more than a tactic. Batista’s lawyer, appearing with him on CNN, told Larry King:
…[Y]ou mentioned the demand for the kidney or the value. Really, that's not what's going on. We use that as an example of what the doctor wants.
What the doctor wants is, A) health to be taken into consideration in the division of the assets, whether or not she'd be entitled to maintenance or not. But most of all, (what's) being done so he can be part of the children's lives. That's what really this case is all about…
He doesn't want the kidney… No, what he wants the court to do is take into consideration what he's done, what a wonderful thing it is he's done and some understanding from the court.
You know, it's so strange; here he does this, and when he says he's allowed to see his children, well, legally he is, but these children have been so alienated from him.
…It was out of desperation that he did it.
No doubt he was desperate … desperate to control the woman who was trying to extricate herself from his control.
Batista expresses awareness of the tawdriness of his demand, and insists that there is an additional, selfless, motivation:
… to draw light to the lack of kidney availability, to the number of poor and dying patients across the country who are yearning to live. I hope, and it's my prayer, that this fallout will help enlighten those people who have any question about organ donation come forward, because there are so many people who are dying as a result of not having an organ.
Oh, sure. He wanted to encourage people to donate organs by suing to get back the organ he donated.
Dawnell Batista has not spoken to the press. According to the facts of the case, though, it would be difficult to find someone more sympathetic. The kidney that Bautista gave her was actually her third transplant. Two previous transplants, from other family members, had eventually stopped working. She has undergone a double mastectomy. Nonetheless, her husband thought that she had time to conduct an affair with her personal trainer (an allegation that she denies), going so far as to examine her lingerie for “evidence” that she was lying.
Richard Batista, who claims to be doing this for his kids, seems to have little consideration for them. According to the children’s court appointed guardian:
"The children are distressed and embarrassed… It's hard for them to go to school. They believe their teachers and friends know everything that is going on. The family's life is in the public now."
When Batista demanded that his estranged wife be jailed for not letting him see his children, the guardian pointed out that he did have visitation rights with his children "as long as nothing derogatory was said about their mother," he claimed that they had been turned against him.
Almost certainly, Mrs. Batista has negative feelings toward her estranged husband, but as for turning them against him, it sounds like Mr. Batista has done just fine on his own. A man who demands that a sick woman return a kidney donation or pay more than a million dollars, and then publicly acknowledges that it is merely a tactic, to retain control over assets and children should not be surprised that his children have turned against him. He shouldn’t be surprised if the public and the court turn against him as well.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MissingK8
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Salon.com
Comments
To quote you dear Doctor: "He shouldn't be surprised if the public and the court turn against him as well."
"What about the attorney who took him on as a client, who filed this suit?"
Evidently he's as obnoxious as the husband.
From a grown man; such infantile behaviour.
A lesson in how NOT to behave.
No doubt he needs counciling too, to get to the bottom of his antisocial tendencies... but I sincerely doubt he'd reach for it.
"My lawyer told me the husband had cancer and the wife and her team wanted to make sure they got everything they could before the husband keeled over. It made me want to puke."
It is beyond belief how heartless some people can be.
"No doubt he needs counciling too, to get to the bottom of his antisocial tendencies... but I sincerely doubt he'd reach for it."
No, he wants revenge.
As far as stiffing the donor goes, if you get sick there is an industry that takes care of you and that industry exists to maximize profit. Getting free material with which to make product is one way to maximize profit but as this article indicates problems can arise. If the hospital had a canceled check made out to the husband we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I am a lawyer so I guess I am looking at this a little differently than you are as a doctor. I think Dominic Barbara is a horse's ass but he is one of the best divorce lawyers in the area. His job is to be the best advocate for his client that he can be and that is what he does. A good advocate will not merely go to the mat for his client, he will take the mat and throw it into the middle of the street and drag the opposing side down there with him. Barbara's job is not to think of the emotional or physical well being of the children or the soon to be ex-wife because they are not his clients. It is unethical of him to take them or their well being into consideration unless that information goes into figuring out how it will hurt or harm his client's interests. It is Dr. Batista's job to be a good human being, a good father, and a good former partner. That cannot be Barbara's concern. I know I am going to get flamed for taking up for Barbara, but I see him as a fellow member of the bar who does what we are trained to do. I understand why the public recoils because we defend people who are accused and are usually guilty of heinous crimes. Some lawyers do it for the art, some do it because it is the case they are assigned, and many of it do it for the money. Look, I am not saying that I would weep if some of the people who are arrested in New York never made it out of the Tombs, but as a lawyer and officer of the court, once the scumbag gets to court, I ferociously defend his/her right to the protections afforded them by our Constitution. When we equivocate on these standards based on a presumption of guilt, we get travesties like Guantanamo Bay. No one denies that terrorism is evil, but when we allow passions and outrage against that evil to trump the protections provided by our Constitution, somehow torturing detainees is okay (with doctors as participants, Dr. Amy), holding detainees indefinitely is okay, denying them access to our courts is okay, extraordinary rendition is okay, and now, according to Obama, retroactively constructing a "legal" system that would make legal these illegal practices okay. That disregard for our Constitution has spread like a cancer and the civilian population did not start to get concerned until the Bush Administration started pissing on their rights with warrantless wiretapping and even paying their cell phone companies to let the government spy on them. Now we have Obama saying that Bush and his cronies should get a free pass on breaking the law because we should look forward, not backward. I know a few poor black kids with drug convictions who would love it if past offenses did not factor into their sentences in favor of moving on. All it takes is for lawyers to betray the standards and ethics of our legal system for society to descend into the chaos we have now. So, before you go beating up on Barbara and me for taking up for him, try to consider that he helps hold up the system that protects us all.
Dr. Amy, have you never found yourself or a colleague in the position of treating someone who is a dirtbag, knowing that if you stitch him up or whatever, that he can then resume beating his wife, driving drunk, or molesting his kids? Your oath requires you to treat people regardless and to go to all lengths to help them, save their lives, and to ensure that they return to health, irrespective of the consequences to others because the jerk on the table is your patient, not them.
Good point. I have heard of men being accused of molesting their children during a nasty divorce case. It makes me wonder what has happened to morals these days?
"The lawyer says it's a tactic to get a better custody arrangement. She ought to be thankful, I've seen a lot worst than a vain attempt to recover a body part in a court proceeding pursuing that goal."
In many states, courts are not fair to divorcing fathers, but I suspect that this is different. Abusive people (men and women) become enraged when the object of abuse tries to escape. There is no limit to what they will do including killing the estranged partner.
"I think Dominic Barbara is a horse's ass but he is one of the best divorce lawyers in the area. His job is to be the best advocate for his client that he can be and that is what he does."
I don't blame him; he is just doing his job. If the husband wanted an amicable settlement, he would never have hired Barbara, and if he wanted the circus to stop, he just has to give the word. I blame the husband. Thus far, there isn't even any evidence that he was betrayed. He sounds like an abusive husband, desperate to continue his abusive ways.
"It makes me wonder what has happened to morals these days?"
I agree. Lots of people talk about them, but very few actually live by them.
There's a passage in the Kama Sutra where it explains the proper societal role of different types of people. The proper behavior for a prostitute, for example, is to get as much money from her clients as she can and even rob them. By that system of ethics, if she fails to rob her client because she likes him, she is being a "bad" prostitute.
Your stance on practicing law strikes me as similar.
I think it is unfair to characterize her as abusive or manipulative.
And yes, I am being intentionally obtuse. But I have real life experience that absolutely forbids me to make any sort of a judgment based upon scant or sensationalized reportage.
People I know well. She could be the person in your story, ill, cancer, pitiable. And when her husband of twenty years left her after she was diagnosed with terminal fourth stage........
The truth in this case, the case I have first hand knowledge of, She had the sharpest tongue of any serpent ever. Reserved ONLY for those few closest family members. There was not a single sentence out of her mouth ever that did not contain some sharp or veiled dig or insult. Pure, sweet, aggrieved woman, and he stayed right with her until it so firmly looked like she was going to die.
The media would have seen her as a saint. Her next door neighbor would have maybe seen some of it, but to her spouse, she was a monster. He stayed until near the end and then went about setting up a home for his children and himself.
And then she fooled one and all and lived 25 years.
Amy, who abused who? Who controlled whom? How can you know? My direct experience has taught me that NO media can know. A son in law who knew her for those 25 years might know, but even he would forever hold his peace.
Your brush stroke , I believe, is too broad. Yep, he may be the vilest thing ever created, but so might she.
Dean
One poster wrote, "It's not unheard of for men to be charged with domestic violence, rape or child molestation from the not quite ex-wives in an effort to exclude them from custody."
True, and it's also probably not unusual that these charges are true. I personally know of a case where the mother was abused, where a step child was sexually molested by the step father. The courts chose to ignore the charges, even though there was plenty of proof, especially of the abuse. The step child had gone to a relative for help but no one believed her except the mother.
Net result...... Father got shared custody of their two children. He married another woman with children and less than two years later was caught by his new wife molesting another step daughter, age 11.
The last I heard of that man he married a third woman when he was in prison! This woman also had children but her parents upon learning his history filed for custody of the children and won.
For once the law worked in favor of kids.
"Amy, who abused who? Who controlled whom? How can you know?"
I can't know what she did to him, and I can't know whether her claims about him are true, but I do know exactly what he is doing to her right now. He is being abusive right now.
I do know that this case has nothing to do with medical ethics or with commodification of organs. Batista himself has admitted as much. Pointing that out was my principle point in writing this post.
I do know that the children's guardian has stated that Batista already has the visiting privileges to his children that he claims to be "fighting" for. I do know that the children's guardian says that the children are being hurt by his behavior.
I do know that this tactic was dreamt up by Batista himself. His lawyer, widely viewed as extremely talented, self-seeking and vicious, has proudly announced that this was Batista's idea, not his.
Unfortunately, I have more professional experience dealing with domestic violence than I ever wanted. On the surface, at least, this appears to be the classic response of an abuser to the attempt of his wife to leave him. We can await the rest of the facts in the case, as soon as the judge manages to get control of the circus that Batista and his lawyer have created.
Had the wife demanded that the husband return a kidney, I would have concluded that she was the abuser.
I think you said it perfectly: "...this is an example of the all too common phenomenon of abusive, controlling men trying to continue abusing and controlling the women who leave them." So true.
There's a certain humorous resonance in a black man wanting his donated kidney back from his wife, something like the black judge who sued some Korean dry cleaners for millions of dollars for losing a pair of his suit pants. But God knows I don't want to write anything objectionable here ever again.
I think he should have stabbed her in the donated kidney. Jury of males and he's acquitted. Maybe the give-me-back-my-kidney notion is really the more civilized way to go. Her lover can hold her hand as she expires. Or maybe he'd be willing to donate one of his kidneys given her track record?
She couldn't have DIVORCED her husband first? Was the penis THAT good, honey? To slap him like that?
------------------------------------------------------------------
It's much more easily explained by people simply following there own self interest. There are several million divorces each year and only tens of thousands of murders. Even if every murder is somehow connected to a divorce, it's not a statistically significant sampling, most divorce ends in loathing, not violence.
I've actually been through this, my step-daughter testified I used to beat her and her mother. She told a social worker "Daddy keeps trying to sell me" since that's what her mother told her I'd been doing since I married her.
She was fourteen at the time, she's 24 now, we've spoken twice in those years. She avoids me, she even skipped her Grandmothers funeral so she wouldn't have to face me.
"Barbara's job is not to think of the emotional or physical well being of the children or the soon to be ex-wife because they are not his clients. It is unethical of him to take them or their well being into consideration unless that information goes into figuring out how it will hurt or harm his client's interests. "
Nonsense. Many lawyers bring ethics WITH them into their work, and will talk with their clients about implications. Frankly, it sounds as though Barbara and Batista are very well-matched.
My heart goes out to the children. It's hard to have your parents divorce. It's even harder when one of them is splashing his face all over the country with the caption "Biggest Dick in the Country" underneath it.
I'm sorry, kids, that Daddy's ego matters more to him than you do. Grow up, have your own families, and do a better job.
It's about how a Pretty Female member of what Larry Niven (wirtes VERY HARD Sc-Fi, that's way better than Battlestar Galactica!) would call an 'Organ-legger Ring', uses a mysterious Pill - given to her dupe at a Disco - to knock him out and.........hours later he wakes up in a bathtub of cold water to the sound of a Phone ringing. Answering it, he's told to call 911 "Or you'll be dead in 8 hours"; as they'd just hacked out one of his Kidneys (perhaps part of his Liver too?) , and they weren't 'equiped' to do his Post-Op Recovery!!!
I honestly thought, when I read the Blurb, that you'd be writting about some poor chap who'd had a bad vacation in India - or China; which is where I'd like to send this JERK - how about you?
Don't get me wrong. The guy is acting a like a major-league jerk. But his jerky behavior may be coming from genuinely hurt feelings.
I have to agree with the earlier post about lawyers being obligated to look after their client's welfare. That is the adversial system we have. If you were in legal trouble, would you want you lawyer trying to figure if it is better for society if you went to jail? Of course not.
As one who has lived on a cadaver kidney for the past thirteen years, I know what a wonderful gift it is. I daily pray for the anonymous donor who gave me another shot at life, so that I could do some more research in an apparently useless field.
My usual nightmares are about having to teach some unearthly course I do not know a thing about. This article might cause a few more, involving the dead donor coming to life and asking for compensation or demanding the kidney back.