Tokyo, Procrastination

I recently watched a video online about a man who wants the kidney he donated to his wife returned as part of the divorce settlement-- or she can pay him 1.5 million dollars.

You can read about the story at this link or this one or watch it here (more from his point of view) or here.

Evidently there was a major breakdown in this relationship.  According to the first video, she cheated and refused to let him see his children.  I don't agree with her actions, but I don't know this couple personally so there is no way to say who is the wrong one is. Maybe she's evil.  Maybe he caused it.  I have no idea.  What I want to focus on is this method of retribution this man took.

In the article and video he says that he did it to save her life, the life of the mother of his children and his wife and that he didn't regret saving her life and that he would do it again (I assume he meant if he were at that same point in the past).  Okay... but then I don't get the disconnect.  He mentions that he feels betrayed by what occurred later.    I can understand feeling the need to get even after a betrayal.  But hold on a minute!  There are some gifts that have to be freely given with no strings attached.  And I think giving an organ is one of them.  If you feel that you are "owed" something for this kind of gift, maybe you aren't psychologically suited to give it even if your are physiologically capable.  Also, even if that woman did not continue to be his wife, she still continues to be the mother of his children.  Despite any betrayal a spouse may feel, I think it's important to consider how one's actions will effect the children.

If this legal action is an attempt to get the wife to let him see his children, I think he has not really thought this through clearly and/ or has been given some really bad advice.  What kind of message does this send to one's children?

It's quite hard for me to imagine.  I come from a really stable home environment.  But I do think that children can grow up and make decisions about their parents on their own.  Despite whatever "programming" the custodial parent might impart, most rational adults will be able to sort out the actions of their parents and come up with their own opinion of what happened.  It's not necessarily easy and I'm sure it's painful and tangled.  But if kids want to know about their parents' relationship and suspect that they're not getting the whole truth about from one parent, it's not too difficult to find another adult to spill the beans.

Basically, if you want your grown kids not to think you're a jerk, then don't act like one even if you're getting screwed over. If in fact, the wife in this situation is not giving the husband a fair shake, it seems to me that his actions, no matter his intentions, will validate what she says.  His actions say that love is not for free, you're partner can give you something one day and then demand it back. Maybe its that things that should come without strings really have them.   Maybe his actions will teach his girls that if you get a gift, you have to repay it.  Who knows.

I feel sorry for this family.  I'm sorry that their relationship went through this hardship and ended up in this negative situation.  I'm sorry for the negative implications this may have for the future of these people.


Comments
on Jan 08, 2009

I heard this story this morning. Kinda funny what people will sue for these days. I sometimes can't help but thinking that when your mind accepts that suing for something like this is OK, our society is a lot more lost that I thought it was and I may even consider it to be unrecoverable. I mean, have we truly reach a point in our society where the best way to deal with pain is to inflict twice as much back onto the person who gave it to you? This is no longer an eye for an eye, this is "I lost one of mine, now I want both of yours".

on Jan 08, 2009

While I do not condone the man's actions, I can sympathize with him.  My own divorce along with that of a co-worker has shown that some women are so evil, as they do play games with their children to get back at their ex's.  WHile his actions are scary, and wrong, hers are just as scary and worse.  He is playing russian roullete with one life, she is doing it with several innocent lives.

Instead of getting it back, the kidney should be given to someone less evil. 

on Jan 08, 2009

This is one case that deserves to be thrown out!  He gave her the kidney he should let her keep it.  In essence, since the relationship when sour, she's better off being dead since she's not with him! That's what he's saying to his kids! Not cool!

on Jan 08, 2009

I saw this too.  The article I read said he doesn't really want his kidney back but financial compensation....kinda like, I keep the Jag honey, you keep the kidney.  (This is a wealthy couple.)

Her attorney said previous cases on breast implants already set the precedent, they're not considered mutual property. 

 

on Jan 08, 2009

Her attorney said previous cases on breast implants already set the precedent, they're not considered mutual property.

I would agree on a kidney - but breast implants?  Come on!  We all know they really are.

on Jan 08, 2009

This story even made into papers here in Australia.  I was gobsmacked until I read the version we got here.  It appears as though he had tried all other avenues of negotiation with his estranged wife with regards to visitation rights and she kept dicking him around so he decided on this course of action.  I don't think he really expects to get anything out of it except to shame his ex into doing to right thing with respect to their children.

And of course, it is the poor kids who suffer the most from all this carry on.

on Jan 08, 2009

dynamaso


I don't think he really expects to get anything out of it except to shame his ex into doing to right thing with respect to their children.
And of course, it is the poor kids who suffer the most from all this carry on.

I think that is what he wanted to.  But the only person he shamed is himself-- worldwide.  If he was the "victim" to all his wife's manouvering, he just lost himself any sympathy as far as I'm concerned.  His response totally makes me question if he hasn't somehow brought it all upon himself.  I really think there are some moves you just can't make even if you are in a corner.  Something like this makes other wonder if you haven't finally shown your true colors under the pressure.

Dr Guy


Her attorney said previous cases on breast implants already set the precedent, they're not considered mutual property.


I would agree on a kidney - but breast implants?  Come on!  We all know they really are. /quote

 

This kind of logic makes me wonder how his attorney got into law school.  Doesn't the LSAT have a logic section?  Implants have nothing to do with life maintaining functions.

Doc, lol.  Isn't a man buying breast implants for a woman really an investment for himself?

on Jan 09, 2009

Doc, lol. Isn't a man buying breast implants for a woman really an investment for himself?

That's how it appears to me.