A donation once consummated is "fait accompli" in law with a single exception, i.e. "ungratefullness" and the donor can revoke the donation only on this basis. This is true both in civil and common law, and under sharia rules.

The subject of donation as contemplated by law is a "thing" within the commerce of men and not prohibited by law. A vital organ, in my view, is not the "thing" within this contemplation since a donation of this nature cannot be undone even in the overwhelming face of ungratefulness. It is, therefore, erroneous for an advocate, as reported in the article, to put the theory of his case along this premise.

The US Court hearing this plea will not set a good precedent in common law (this being a US case) if the prayer of the complainant is granted. Donating a vital organ transcends beyond the commerce of men, and should not be the subject of any pecuniary valuation.

Complainants in divorce proceedings can seek alternative relief in the form of damages for wrongful acts, and the advocate can very well argue on "sleepless nights", "bismirched reputation", "wounded feelings" and "extreme ungratefulness", and Courts often grant relief to bring the message accross.