Dr. Richard Batista‘s wife’s health was failing, and so was their marriage. To save them both, he offered to be the kidney donor his wife Dawnell badly needed.
Dawnell recovered, but their marriage didn’t. A few years later she filed for divorce. Now her husband says he wants his kidney back. If he can’t have it, he wants a payment of $1.5 million, the estimated worth of the organ.
Medical ethicists say Batista is unlikely to get either, as it’s illegal to exchange money for an organ and the law is clear that no gift, once given, can be forcibly taken back.
This is a sad story on all fronts. But would it be possible 10 or 20 years from now? As Dubner and Levitt wrote in The Times Magazine, our repugnance toward assigning monetary value to human life has grown, receded, and changed over time.
How long until, and under what conditions, will a market in donated organs become acceptable?
(Hat tip: Alex Hagen)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
This makes me wonder if the same law or rules apply to breast implants. Technically, they are not organs and I can’t imagine how many men have paid for such “enhancements”. Will they be able to keep the “fun bags” in the event of a divorce or separation?
This guy clearly should have had her sign an amended pre-nup.
He’s definitely due something for his pain, trouble, and the loss of a kidney. The simple fact is, without his donation, she wouldn’t be alive today. In the abstract, she really does owe him her life. How does she pay him back for this priceless favor? She divorces him.
The money is probably fair compensation for her less-than-wonderful behavior. For someone to put themselves in harm’s way to preserve your life is a thing that merits gratitude and consideration. And if she cannot bring herself to live with him, she ought to express her gratitude financially.
Doesn’t he know the ancient legal precedent of No Take Backsies?
So, yeah, a lot of the comments already have captured most of the points that matter. Though I am not legally allowed to give actual legal advice, it seems like the husband would clearly lose. This was a gift given, and there was absolutely no expectation involved that she would pay anything back (so no unjust enrichment). This would probably work for juts about anyone who freely donated an organ. It’s especially true, though, for a husband who did so; things done for close family members, from what I understand, are generally presumed to be gratuitous, and thus without intent to charge. Therefore, he couldn’t demand restitution of any kind. I don’t know he could win this suit.
this is only his side of the story. i sincerely doubt its accuracy.
Brooke: “And if she cannot bring herself to live with him, she ought to express her gratitude financially.”
“Ought” and “should be legally required to” are not & shouldn’t be the same, however – I wouldn’t like to see a court side with Dr. Batista here.
Of course, they’re still in divorce proceedings, and have been for ages – this demand is part of the negotiations. It’s not actually a suit at this point, just the threat of one.
TWC presents the best argument for awarding compensation, but I don’t believe this is the argument being used by Dr. Batista – nor does it seem to jibe with the $1.5 million figure that’s been put forward. I could be wrong, though!
I suppose the next chapter in this tawdry tale will be when the kidney fails, ex-wife returns to ex-husband to modify the alimony order to get him to cover her dialysis costs.