[darawk]

No, it doesn't seem like you read anything that i've said thus far. You have not articulated any problems. You have gestured at them. Someone's kidney being removed is not, in and of itself, a problem. Play the scenario all the way through. Where do the problems start? You seem to want to imply that there will be latent health consequences to the people doing this. But even the slightest amount of research would quickly dispel that myth.

So, i'll ask again: What if any, specific, negative consequences will accrue to individuals or society at large as a result of a market in kidneys?

[zaptheimpaler]

Yeah no you didn't read shit. One "latent health problem" I specifically called out is what if your other freaking kidney fails later? Any shred of common sense would tell you that yes, having one of your organs removed IS a problem. And you ignored everything about perverse incentives that it creates. As if you. in your infinite wisdom, can predict every single "specific, negative consequence" caused by those.

[darawk]

> I specifically called out is what if your other freaking kidney fails later?

Yes, that's a problem. However, it does not impact life expectancy for kidney donors. Kidney donors do not have significant health complications.

> Any shred of common sense would tell you that yes, having one of your organs removed IS a problem.

Yes, it does seem that way. Until you read about it, and realize that it isn't.

> And you ignored everything about perverse incentives that it creates. As if you. in your infinite wisdom, can predict every single "specific, negative consequence" caused by those.

"Perverse" incentives are not, in and of themselves, negative consequences. Perverse incentives may cause negative consequences. I am asking you what those consequences are. You enumerated one: kidney failure. A great start. However, it's not something medical practitioners in the area worry particularly much about.