Organ donation

Brenna kindly responds to my question:

"Because organ donation is a painful and dangerous process, which the rich and middle-class are unlikely to undertake for the money. Only the poor and desperate would be likely to pursue this source of income--which leads to problems of coersion--and they're unlikely to be the ones getting the organs.

When you're doing research with human subjects, there are limits on compensation for just this reason. How much more so, when the risk of harm is greater (or certain--I mean, they come out minus a major organ). This isn't even going into the possibility of someone else forcing a person to donate organs for the money."

I originally had a longer response that I've since removed because I think the response is simple. Brenna brings up issues of possibilities of coercion and forcing someone to donate. How is that any different now from before? If anything, it's more possible *now* since the demand remains high but supply is terribly low.

We already have laws for coercion and forcing someone to donate an organ. Making it legal to sell an organ affects the chances of coercion and forcing someone to donate none and if anything, *reduces* that chance.