| | I think this is just a power negotiating tactic to make him feel better in a bad situation, not because he actually expects her to relinquish a body organ. Look at the extra press he's getting about her affair. It's a legal method for him to denigrate her character in a widely publicized way, and perhaps she deserves such denigration. I doubt he would do this if he rather than she had the affair.
Based on this analysis, I consider TSI's Post 5 a non sequitur.
A related article had this to say with my own emphasis in bold:
Dr. Richard Batista's chances of collecting any cash from his estranged wife for giving her a kidney back in 2001? Try none, divorce lawyers say.
"He doesn't have a kidney to stand on," lawyer Raoul Felder quipped. "This is one of the most tasteless marital acts of the century. It makes him a laughingstock."
Seymour Reisman, a Long Island divorce lawyer for 40 years, agreed.
"A kidney is not a marital asset," Reisman said. "The husband did what all of us, if given the opportunity, are expected to do - help another person.
"This claim eight years later is without merit and vindictive."
I did a double take when I read "expected" before laughing. I love the people close to me, but I'd have to think carefully about forfeiting an organ I might need later. Kidneys supposedly fail in pairs, so supposedly you only need one because if it fails, you could be guaranteed the other would have failed, too. Still, I'd be reluctant. A wife is easier to replace than a kidney.
This guy would have done much better for himself to have gotten adequate life insurance on his wife when they married, kept it current, then refused to donate his kidney given their "troubled" marriage, let her perish, and collected the death benefit.
Cut your losses short and run your wins long, I say.
(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/15, 5:51am)
|
|
