HUSBAND GIVES KIDNEY TO WIFE..

WIFE CHEATS ON HUSBAND

HUSBAND DEMANS EITHER THE KIDNEY BACK OR A MILLION DOLLARS.

I'm sure you are all familiar with this story.. if not just google it.

It raises some interesting ethical and social issues.

Imagine if you gave your kidney to your wife, so she can LIVE, but then..contrary to your expection, she CHEATS on you....

Here's how I see it.

She only has LIFE because of what you did for her....you saved her life.

What she then did is tantamount to spitting in your face and mocking you.. "AAAah.. I don't care.. I'm alive and now I can do what I like"

I feel the man is ABsolutely within his moral right to demand significant damages from her for his kidney.

Comment?

Polycarp,

As far as I know, once you donate an organ,
having signed all sorts of legal documents,
you certainly can't ask for it back, or demand
compensation in lieu.

This sounds like a bad case of injured pride,
and sour grapes. His wife didn't begin the
affair until 18 months to 2 years after
receiving the kidney transplant. Who knows
what happened in their marriage during that
time?

He claims that he had no regrets
about donating the kidney, only about the
failed marriage. "To this day I would do
it again," he said.

It sounds like he wants compensation for being
"humiliated, betrayed as a person, a man,
a husband and father."

Is he entitled to anything morally?
Only he and his wife know what really
happened in their marriage. The rest is
media spin.

Why doesn't he ask for the million dollar home
that they own in Massappequa as part of his
divorce settlement, if he can prove her to
be the guilty party in this case.

And get counseling!

Thanx Foxy..yes there are many sides to the story.. grateful for you digging them out.

In principle.. I suppose I just feel that when you give part of your body to keep someone alive.. they have a moral obligation to be faithful.

If he was not faithful.. I suggest that would indeed negate that moral bind.

So..perhaps I can re-state it.

1/ If he was faithful and a good husband...and she simply wanted a new ride/a change.. found a toy boy..... he has a claim.

2/ If he was a mongrel.. held it over her for all manner of 'Look...ur only alive because of me..now do this that and the other thing"...then I think he has no claim.

I've not thought terribly deeply about this, but the unusual nature of the incident caught my attention :)

I read he's only doing it as a way to highlight to her she's being unreasonable in her custody demands with the children, and to shame her into a more equitable arrangement.

Poly, I also think that he's just making
some kind of point here.

He's obviously very frustrated, and seems
to be grabbing at straws because there's
two different issues involved here. Ones
the judge I'm sure will separate in a court
of law.

The issue of organ donation is one issue.
Which stands on its own entirely.

The other - her faithfullness, is a different
story - and will undoubtedly affect the
divorce settlement. And this is (I think)
the case that he's trying to influence.

Hmm... maybe so..maybe so..

I find it difficult to think of it as a separate thing though.. "organ donation" kind of dehumanizes it a little..

The man gave part of his body.. to keep the one he loved alive... surely there is more to this than just 'organ donation' and then 'divorce settlement'?