[StatHacking]

Nonsense. Saying that kidneys should be "commoditized" to avoid the black market it's like saying that slaves should be legal to avoid people travelling in a container.

In particular, kidneys can be transplanted from "dead" to living, and donning between living - even inside your family - is very restricted (at least in Uruguay). Although one case may be very altruistic and reasonable, there are thousands of subtle situations which are horrendous, and all the donning process will be heavily affected.

It's a moral statement: you can't put price on life or your body.

Improving the donors rate with policies is a better way to go and it hasn't reached its limits so far.

[ataggart]

>Saying that kidneys should be "commoditized" to avoid the black market it's like saying that slaves should be legal to avoid people travelling in a container.

The analogy falls apart when you consider that one can legally donate ones bone marrow, but one cannot legally donate a slave. Thus the distinction between the two is not predicated on whether one receives payment, which is the policy change being discussed.

>It's a moral statement: you can't put price on life or your body.

With organs, the law currently sets the price at $0.

[StatHacking]

No, it doesn't. Bone marrow regenerates, the same is for blood (which is a tissue). One thing is donating organs, other is donating tissues. While you may define an organ as a "set of tissues" (therefore, skin). In "transplantation slang" is commonly referred to "organs" as not regenerating ones, i.e. kidneys, heart, etc.

As long as you can't sell it, there is no price at it.