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'?

Not sure exactly what US law says but in English contract law

1 the historic supply of a kidney would be deemed "past performance" and ineligible for present "consideration" (payment), regardless he wants to have it "enforced" / considered now.

2 since the commercial supply of organs is "illegal", he is basically demanding payment against what amounts to an illegal contract, something else which is legally unenforcable.

Personally, I find the idea of payment for such things totally immoral and no different to something which my ex-wife implied as having given me the "best years of her lifes"

and to which, I simply responded -

"they were the best years of her life only because she spent them with and had them funded by me" :-)

Hi Col... yes.. relationships :)... they get complicated.

I suppose one might think twice before parting with one's kidney unless you had resolved to accept all possible scenarios which may come.

I can't see the man has any legal right here.. I'm only considering the fact that she is alive because of his kidney... difficult for me to get past that.
P.S. see u this sunday at the statue in front of the State Lib :) 2.00pm unless complications.

'P.S. see u this sunday at the statue in front of the State Lib :) 2.00pm unless complications.'

That sounds very suspicios. I wonder what this meeting will be about. Comrades. Wink Wink. Viva la revelution!

They'll be easy to pick - Porky'll be the Elmer Fudd type with a sign saying "Islam Sucks", while Troll Scrooge will be the Victor Meldrew lookalike carrying a sign saying "Socialism by Stealth".

With any luck, they'll both be arrested.

Polycarp,

Talking about divorce settlements ...

This is a perfect example of being
careful, with what information you
provide to lawyers ...

Sometimes it pays to keep your mouth shut.

Take Col's case.

He openly admits in his previous post, that the
'best years' of his wife's life were as
a result of being married to him, and
funded by him. Her lawyer would then
argue for the maintenance of the
life-style to which she's become
accustomed.

Col's settlement to his wife must
have been HUGE.

Polycarp:

"HUSBAND GIVES KIDNEY TO WIFE..

"WIFE CHEATS ON HUSBAND

"HUSBAND DEMANS EITHER THE KIDNEY BACK OR A MILLION DOLLARS."

Polycarp 2 hours later:

"yes there are many sides to the story...I've not thought terribly deeply about this."

Polycarp 5 hours later:

"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'?"

I've got a radical new idea for YOU Polycarp. It's this: What about doing some research (call it homework if you prefer) before you burst into print with your opinion on any little 'news' story that tickles your fancy?

One advantage, I'm led to believe is that you would know the relevant facts of the matter BEFORE you develop an opinion. I know! I know! You're a busy man with lots on your agenda and you've never bothered much about facts in the past.

But hey, it's a new year and you could just give it a fling. What have you got to lose but your reputation? Not much at stake there.

>>P.S. see u this sunday at the statue in front of the State Lib :) 2.00pm unless complications<<

eeeuuuw. Get a room, guys.

Or at least swap phone numbers.

This type of scenario can extend beyond between domestic partners . For example , suppose one sibling donates to another , then the donee later refuses to speak to the donor , for some reason , or cheats the donor in business . Should the donor be entitled to demand the return of the kidney , or compensation ? Of course not !

This is another example of the way in which body parts and embryos are increasingly seen as being no different from commodities .

Foxy “Col's settlement to his wife must have been HUGE.”

The first one got 65% assets and I got a maintenance agreement tied to inflation, instead of tied to what I earned.
With inflation running at 1% (1994) and my CSA assessable earnings trebling, it meant what I lost on the swings I made up for lots of times over on the roundabouts.
I ignored the way she used to defraud me on minor purchases she made, supposedly but not really, for my daughters but she has since mentioned that openly and now my daughters treat her with contempt for what she did.
She also wanted $10,000 for her share of the goodwill in my business name so I told her she could buy it off me, instead.
Then when she threatened to turn me into the ATO I said “go for it”, she had been the one signing off the tax returns for the previous 5 years….

The second one tried an end-run with dodgy Victorian State property caveats and US court judgment, following her transferring some credit card debts from her name into mine (the old 6 months at ¼% interest rate, marketing offers), enforced by her ‘friendly’ magistrate in Texas but I bought the best Aussie barrister going and batted that ball right back at her, all the way to USA:- )

One friend asked me, concerning his divorce, what ‘attitude’ he should adopt.

My response “Be fair, remember you loved that person once” .

In my book “fair” means after say 5 years, whatever you each once had is owned jointly and you are both equally entitled to 50% of the total, you are both responsible for the joint welfare of your children.

I am fortunate, I have an absolutely fabulous relationship with my daughters and the first ex even gives me an endorsement. The second one no longer communicates, I think it had something to do with her last toxic email, when I copied it back to her son and father and suggested they have her committed as a danger to herself.

Col Rouge: << Then when she threatened to turn me into the ATO I said “go for it”, she had been the one signing off the tax returns for the previous 5 years…. >>

How unsurprising that our most objectionable resident bean counter has apparently been less than honest in his declarations to the ATO.

CJMoron "How unsurprising that our most objectionable resident bean counter has apparently been less than honest in his declarations to the ATO."

That could not be implied from my post

A visit from an ATO Auditor is cause for reasoned concern and a deterrent to anyone, even the most fastidious and scrupulous of those who are required to submit tax returns.

But if you had the necessary where-with-all which allowed you to understand more than just the little words, you would have gleaned from my post that the issue was not a problem or concern for me in the least.

As to "objectionable", I am sure you have far greater experience and understanding of the circumstances and characteristics which qualify as "objectionable".

Considering the content of all your posts, I am quite certain, it must be your middle name. Now I suggest you just scurry back under the table and chew on a bone.

Col Rouge: << That could not be implied from my post >>

Quite so, but if Col had a better understanding of English he'd know that it could be a reasonable inference from his statement. If he had nothing to hide, his response to his fortunately erstwhile wife would surely have been more along the lines of "go ahead - they won't find anything illegal".

Instead, Col's response was to spread the guilt. I infer from that response that he did indeed have something to hide, and his solution was to blackmail his ex-wife into silence.

As I said, how unsurprising.

Col, CJ, I think you two secretly love each other.

CJ
One could reasonably read more points into his statements.
First like Polycarp they both believe that people can be bought and paid for. This case is a no brainer two people have a bad break-up. No biggy certainly nothing to get excited about.
It seems these two know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Generosity is its own reward. If I took the point that every time in my life did something for someone else they owed me I too would be twitter and bisted.
Cols second window on his thinking will come of no surprise. (Arrogance)
He believes that his presence in a marriage made his ex-wife's best years (and he paid for them). I’m sure the women on OLO will be thrilled with the implications(insults) of his curmudgeonly attitude.
One wonders what part their children played in their life. Statistics suggest that many women stay in a marriage for their children. They leave and the marriage fails.
Perhaps it's his second hand quip (ex Joan Rivers) that makes me think that. Then again most of his barbs are usually rehashes. Certainly not clever or witty. Watch his response to this.

Dear Col,

I've got to give credit where credit is due,
and it's your saying:

"Be Fair, remember you loved that person once."

So, from me to you: Mwah, mwah! (Kiss, kiss).

Foxy

I have been too unwell for active participation on OLO however with your post:

>"Take Col's case.

He openly admits in his previous post, that the
'best years' of his wife's life were as
a result of being married to him, and
funded by him. Her lawyer would then
argue for the maintenance of the
life-style to which she's become
accustomed.

Col's settlement to his wife must
have been HUGE.

Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 15 January 2009 9:17:26 AM<"

You have won my undying respect.

Champagne blogging m'dear

You are truly an inspiration.

Foxy “So, from me to you: Mwah, mwah! (Kiss, kiss).”

I blush deeply, accept graciously and respond respectfully,

Thankyou

:- ])

Dear Fractelle,

I'm so sorry to hear that you've been unwell.
I hope that you're feeling better.

I've had a few rotten things to deal with
as well, family-wise.

But, life goes on as they say.
Though there are moments when I wonder why?
(just briefly) Then I snap out of it.

Anyway, Thanks for making my evening.
You've the knack to always cheer me up
with your kind words.

Take care,

AAAh... well... aside from the infantile 'Get Porky' squad (CJ and SPIKEY) there are some very intersting angles on life coming out of this thread, which of course is partly why I latch onto some interesting news story (like the 'Aryan Nation' naming choice one also).. -to explore peoples views.

Fraccy.. sorry to hear u've been unwell.. hug hug.

Foxy.. I can almost detect a wry smile in your posts to Col :) good work. He's a nice bloke in person too.. so.. ur kisses are well directed I'm sure -*grin*

I wish I had Col doing my work yesterday.. trying to translate binary arithmetic (multiplication) into machine code for a current project.. my head just about blew up many times...I'm definitely not a 'numbers' man.

Poor Spikey.. man you must live an embittered life..... oh.. no, my sign won't be 'Islam sucks' it would more likely be as I said "No Hamas Rockets/No Israeli Bombs"... 'balance' u know.

I'll save "Islam sucks" for my turn at the mic at speakers corner :)
but I'd approach it this way.. I'd call for Muslim volunteers from the crowd to read the relevant Quranic verses......Then, I'd ask them how respected is so and so a commentator..then ask them to read what that commentator says about Jews and Christians.... should make an interesting afternoon.

Houellebecq: << Col, CJ, I think you two secretly love each other. >>

Very perceptive of you - and there I was thinking it was our little secret. My disdain for Col is clearly because he's rejected me in favour of Porky's charms, not to mention his shameless online snogging with Foxy. Obviously, he's just a bisexual, bean-counting tart.

Hell hath no fury like a Morgan scorned!

Dear CJ,

No need to be scorned, you know I also have a
thing for jeans, boots, and 'Cowboy hats...'

Foxy,

But will he still love you in the morning?

Dear Spikey,

Will he still love me in the morning?

You betcha!

The night will guarantee that!

cont'd

Oh my gosh, I can't believe
I posted that!

Is my face red ... :[

( I think I'll now go and
sit in a corner).

Well you might blush, you saucy temptress!

I can accept my beloved Col rejecting me in favour of your foxy charms, but these trysts he's been having publicly with Porky have cut me to the quick.

He may say he'll love you tomorrow, he may even offer you a kidney -but when push come to shove his promiscuity knows no bounds.

I'm just waiting for him to run off with Gibo or Leigh next, the hussy! He's gone from beloved troll to bisexual trollop in the merest blink of an eye. Make sure that kidney comes encased in a condom.

Foxy “Will he still love me in the morning?

You betcha!

The night will guarantee that!
cont'd

Oh my gosh, I can't believe
I posted that!

Is my face red ... :[

( I think I'll now go and
sit in a corner).”

ROFLMAO

your comment illustrates one of the thought processes which defines the difference between men and women

Ladies often harbor concerns about being treated merely as a sex-object by the men in their lives

Men, on the other hand, live in anticipation of being treated merely as a sex object by the ladies in theirs.

The resident Moron comments abound and for some reason trigger off memories of a Dire Straits Song “Money for Nothing”

I am still trying to work out exactly which words….

It could have been his promiscuity comment re

“Money for nothin and chicks for free”

But then thinking of CJ and his Alf Garnet / Victor Meldrew fetish

“See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy thats his own hair”

Just as

“Bangin on the bongoes like a chimpanzee”

Seem to suit, equally.

See what I mean, Foxy? He'll just use you and abuse you, like he does with me.

<< “See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy thats his own hair” >>

He's made the point previously that he differs from Alf and Victor because he still has "his own hair", and also that he's somewhat short of stature.

But I'd never call him a "little faggot", despite his appalling jewelley and cosmetic sense.

<< "Bangin on the bongoes like a chimpanzee" >>

However, he never tires of beating his own drum, so to speak. Lovers like us are somewhat superfluous to someone who is so self-sufficient in sexual terms.

But I guess you'll find out in your own way ;)

What a dilemma...

It's very difficult deciding between
you both - one represents a sophisticated
'champagne style.' The other represents -
hot summer nights ('you give me fever').

With one I'm a 'lady' with the other, a
'saucy temptress.'

What a choice...

Can I have both?

Foxy

Go with CJ. At least when the s*x is done with you could expect a rational conversation.

Spikey "Go with CJ. At least when the s*x is done with you could expect a rational conversation."

My experience has been, the last thing any of the the girls have wanted, when we have "finished", is a "rational conversation", they prefer to slip into that blissful slumber brought on by exhaustion, as they bask in the afterglow of an intensely satisfying experience.

But I suppose with CJ and his best efforts, polite, rational conversation has a place,

Like

CJ says 'Was that as good for you?'

Gal replies "Oh, you have finished, I did not realise we had started"

So Spikey "Keep em coming" ....

oh, but thats something else I am used to hearing ...

*I'll save "Islam sucks" for my turn at the mic at speakers corner :)
but I'd approach it this way.. I'd call for Muslim volunteers from the crowd to read the relevant Quranic verses......Then, I'd ask them how respected is so and so a commentator..then ask them to read what that commentator says about Jews and Christians.... should make an interesting afternoon.*
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 16 January 2009 4:25:16 AM*

Porky
Sounds like an interesting afternoon. Then we will ask you to read from the bible or any other book of Christian 'Guidence- Ask 'Any Church Leader in Australia 'Why' our Muslim Leaders are the only ones to have spoken out and rallied together to do something about the cruelty to Animals during live Exports.

The Muslims leave you guys for dead !

Col Rouge,

Confucius say: "Man who love himself has no rivals."

Almost Forgot Porky The Value of a Kidney!

A gift is a gift and certainly an organ cant be sold. Apart from being illegal its discusting.

Also you are forgeting the most important rule arnt you.

The gift of a kidney can never be anything other than a gift from God.

Spikey "Confucius say: "Man who love himself has no rivals."

yes,

one cannot love others without loving oneself

I suppose you do not.

a distinct impression of self loathing exudes from every one of your posts.

Col Rouge,

"a distinct impression of self loathing exudes from every one of your posts."

I rest my case!

Spikey "I rest my case!"

I suppose what is as obvious your a nose on your face is pretty hard for you to deny,

So, I will accept that as your personal admission of your self loathing

and an end to any more vapid conversation from you, I trust...

Could somebody please tell Col that the Earth didn't move for me, either?

But I'll always remember that we loved each other once. :0

Having just tuned into this thread, I must say Foxy, I had no idea.

I'd already discovered (when trying to debate teen binge drinking) that examinator and Col had become besotted by your wily foxy charms, but CJ as well? It's too much.

If you keep this up, none of us charm-challenged girls will have a chance. Our serious efforts to engage with the issues will be wasted as you play 'saucy temptress' and distract all our most eligible debating fellows!

Hopefully Fractelle will be back soon to talk some sense into you. You're obviously not listening to me, nor I'm sure to Spikey either!

Seriously, Fractelle, I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell. I've missed you being around and hope you're feeling much better soon.

We need you to come back and sort Foxy out. She's gone wild!