Organs (continued)

Brenna asks "Who is being coerced under the current system, and why?"

It's not an issue of who is being coerced under the current system. The issue is it wouldn't change under the new system. It's simple economics. As the demand for an item lessens or the supply of it increases, the black market and the crime that surrounds the acquisition (including killing people for them or stealing them) of that item lessens.

With supply greatly increased and demand unaffected, the risk of coercion or people being forced is logically lessened. And even is someone is coerced or forced to sell a kidney, we have laws for that. We convict the people who break the laws.

But let's assume (only for academic purposes) there is an increase of coercion and people forced to donate. That is more than balanced out by the elimination of the black market for organs.
The issue of "unequal distribution of the burden" is simple class warfare talk. The buyer gets a kidney and the seller gets income he normally wouldn't have had. It's a consensual transaction between two adults.

PROS:
-People live with a new kidney.
-Those selling the kidney (might be mostly poor but who cares? It's their choice) are compensated and now, if they are poor, have money they wouldn't have otherwise had.
-The black market for kidneys is basically eliminated.

CONS:
-None that didn't exist in the first place