I
10
WWW.GUILFORDIAN.COM
Revenge ef the kidney dener
By Sari Schutrum-Boward
Staff Writer
We often hear about divorces
involving children being taken
away and money issues, but
organs are never among the
assets to be divided.
Until now, that is. When Dr.
Richard Batista decided to take
control of his slow divorce pro
cess, he demanded the return of
his kidney or $1.5 million.
Dr. Batista and his wife
Dawnell married in 1990. Before
Dawnell battled kidney failure,
they were having marital prob
lems.
Dawnell had two failed trans
plants, which led to Dr. Batista
donating his kidney in 2001. Dr.
Batista hoped that donating his
kidney would help patch up their
marriage.
According to The New York
Daily News, Batista said, "After
an injury suffered while trying
to earn her black belt, she began
physical therapy - which evolved
into an affair with her thera
pist."
Once people are close to dying,
they tend to evaluate their lives.
They may change themselves
and what they want in their life.
Perhaps Dawnell discovered that
she was not satisfied with her
marriage, which led to her affair.
Dawnell filed for divorce in
2005, and the rockiness of the
divorce process began.
"It's illegal for an organ to
be exchanged for anything of
value," said Robert Veatch, a
medical ethicist at Georgetown
University's Kennedy Institute of
Ethics to Newsday.
In the United States, organs
can not be sold, and donating an
organ is a gift.
"It's her kidney now and . .
. taking the kidney out would
mean she would have to go on
dialysis or it would kill her," said
Veatch.
Since Dr. Batista is a surgeon,
he would know the laws around
donating organs, and I think he
chose to ignore the laws, and
look for the media's sympathy.
Dr. Batista is using the dona
tion as a hateful tool against
Batista. He is allowing his emo
tions to control his actions, which
is making him irrational.
"I felt humiliated, betrayed,
disrespected and disregarded
for me as a person, as a man,
as a husband, as a father," said
Batista. -
According to Newsday, if Dr.
Batista can't get the kidney, he
wants, "$1.5 million - which, he
said reflects in part the value of
the kidney transplant."
Divorces are not meant to put
people in danger, but should
allow separation to happen in an
orderly fashion, and Dr. Batista is
making his divorce ridiculous.
Asking for a return of a kidney is immoral. This
man has turned cold and lost all sense of right
and wrong.
her. Death is a sensitive subject
that is not meant to be used for
revenge.
According to BBC, Dr. Batista
mentioned that he was betrayed
and going to the public was the
last resort.
Asking for a return of a kidney
is immoral. This man has turned
cold and lost all sense of right
and wrong.
"There is no deeper pain that
you can ever express than betray
al from somebody who you love
and devoted your life to," said
Even though Dawnell ripped
out Dr. Batista's heart, he has no
right to request organs.
No matter how hurt the doctor
is, he should not go to the utmost
extreme. Receiving flesh will not
help with his pain, but cause
more legal issues in the future.
Dr. Batista is making his
divorce into a circus. Once the
divorce process speeds up, I
think Dr. Batista might get a little
sympathy, but he will be mainly
looked down on because of his
unreasonable demands.
Lifting the financial burden
By Abbey Dean
Staff Writer
A new UCLA survey noted that
49 percent of students planned to
get a job to meet the expenses of
a college education, the highest
figure since the question was first
posed 32 years ago.
There is no denying that the
current economic crisis has taken
its toll on the wallets as well as
the patience of many Americans.
College students across the nation
have especially felt the increasing
burden of this reality.
The price of attending college
has continued to rise, adding fur
ther stress to those who are already
struggling to pay for the absurdly
high costs of tuition, books, food,
and gas prices.
In fact, according to a recent
article from msn.careerbuilders.
com, there are only five—that's
right, five—secure career options
befitting the chaotic state of our
economy.
Therefore, unless your pro
spective career is a web designer.
nurse, accountant, adult educator,
or a health services administrator,
you're out of luck.
Whatever ridiculous and exag
gerated sentiments are presented
in this article, it does display how
the economy has taken a turn for
the worst.
So, what can college students
like us do to stay afloat? Well,
according to Guilford students,
quite a bit.
"I try to avoid any kind of
shopping. Even grocery shopping
can be tempting," said sophomore
Ivy Lamb. "I am very tight with
spending in general. Tm always
looking for free ways to have fun
with my friends."
Personally, I feel that doing a lot
of small, seemingly insignificant
things can really cut costs.
For instance, walking instead
of driving to Harris Teeter, buying
a reusable water bottle, or even
something as simple as scanning
and comparing prices at Target are
easy ways to reduce spending.
Sophomore Riley Ramage men
tioned a few of her own tactics to
cut expenses.
"I try to only go shopping once
or twice for the whole semester,
which means buying everything I
know I'm going to want in bulk,"
said Ramage.
Also, once you get into a rou
tine of cutting out a Jimmy Johns
sandwich here and there, or mak
ing one less Starbucks adventure,
you can become a spendthrift in
no time.
In all honesty, after a week of
intense classes and pilgrimages to
the library, students should have
the spare change to enjoy them
selves, and remember that life does
not completely revolve around
school. Not to mention, money is
necessary for those much-needed
downtown excursions to Inferno,
midnight runs to Best Diner, and,
of course, the ever-popular Taco
Tuesdays at La Azteca.
Making an honest effort to cut
back in small ways could prove
immensely beneficial to us col
lege students and put a little more
cash back into our light wallets
as well.
FORUM
Statf Editorial
Despite debate, we should
share common goals
Out of all the -issues that
define the world we live in,
the conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians is one of
the most volatile and difficult
to deal with. Most people in
the Guilford community have
never seen a peaceful Middle
East in their lifetime, a fact
that is staggering.
The conflict has resulted in
the deaths of countless peo
ple over the years. A vast
majority of the deaths have
been civilians, most of those
Palestinians. This is a trouble
some fact and one that cannot
be denied.
However, Palestinian mili
tary leadership has had a long
history of targeting the Israeli
civilian population in order
to incite backlash from the
Israelis. This is the immediate
cause of the most recent con
flict in Gaza.
The bottom line is that both
parties were at fault. Hamas'
firing of rockets into cities with
no military targets, during a
ceasefire, is nothing short of
a cowardly, terrorist act. And
Israel's brutal aerial assaults
resulted in the deaths of hun
dreds of civilians, many of
them children, which could've
been avoided by using dif
ferent and more reasonable
military techniques, ones that
are expected of a modern and
powerful military force.
With the most recent conflict
between the Israeli Defense
Force and the Hamas govern
ment resulting in the deaths
of an estimated 1,350 people,
again mostly civilians, people
on both ends of the spectrum
are understandably ignited
with rage, anger, and fear.
This issue is indescribably
emotional for so many within
the Guilford community. As
we all know, there is a siz
able Jewish and Palestinian
population on campus, many
of whom have direct if not
ideological or religious con
nections to the region.
What could arguably be
seen as a major issue in this
conflict is the lack of con
structive dialogue between
the parties. This holds true in
our own community as well.
One can't help but notice a
strong sense of polarization.
There is a strong feeling that
one has to identify exclusively
with one side of the issue,
while totally negating the
other side of the argument.
This is a serious problem
and one that can only lead to
further conflict.
There are many things
that are currently absent
from the dialogue, but one
that strikes many of us is the
lack of fairness and reason-
ability in people's arguments.
Indiscriminate support of
Hamas or the Israeli govern
ment, and the subsequent
refusal to listen openly to the
opposing opinion, is simply
hostility towards peace.
The reality is one doesn't
have to be pro-Israeli nor pro-
Palestinian. As a community
that is committed to peace, it's
imperative for all of us to meet
somewhere in the middle. We
must respect, and expect, jus
tice, peace, and fairness for all
people involved.
While many could argue
that this issue warrants a cer
tain degree of intensity and
passion, the fact remains that
refusing to negotiate is per
haps the largest hindrance to
peace in a land that is holy to
billions of people.
The people of Israel and the
Palestinian territories in Gaza
and the West Bank certainly
have much to disagree about.
But one thing that is univer
sal amongst the people is the
desire to have a life free of
danger, danger that is caused
by belligerent governments.
No one can fairly argue
that one side is totally correct
in its actions when it comes
to Israel and Palestine. But
everyone can agree that all
people deserve to live with
the assurance of peace.
The editorial board of The Guilfordian consists of
five section editors, two photo editors, a layout
editor, an art director, a managing editor, and the
editor-in-chief.
Reflecting Guilford College’s core Quaker values, the
topics and content of Staff Editorials are chosen
through consensus of all eleven editors.