Take a look at Al Roth's blog:
http://marketdesigner.blogspot.com/
He is an economist who designs transactions for repugnant exchanges.

As the death toll from the organ shortage mounts, public opinion will eventually support paying for human organs. Changes in public policy will then follow.
In the mean time, there is an already-legal way to put a big dent in the organ shortage -- allocate donated organs first to people who have agreed to donate their own organs when they die. UNOS, which manages the national organ allocation system, has the power to make this simple policy change. No legislative action is required.
Americans who want to donate their organs to other registered organ donors don't have to wait for UNOS to act. They can join LifeSharers, a non-profit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free atwww.lifesharers.org或致电1-888-ORGAN88。没有年龄限制，父母可以让他们的未成年子女入学，没有人因为任何先前的医疗状况而被排除在外。
Giving organs first to organ donors will convince more people to register as organ donors. It will also make the organ allocation system fairer. Non-donors should go to the back of the waiting list as long as there is a shortage of organs.
David J. Undis
Executive Director
LifeSharers
www.lifesharers.org

There needs to be some way to compensate donors for their time, risk, and kindness. My brother recently received a kidney from a co-worker. It would have been nice to pay for some of the donor's lost work hours, childcare so his wife could spend time with him, maybe a hotel nearby so she didn't have to travel so far, dinner for her. But no gifts at all are allowed.
尸体捐献者的葬礼费用应该是固定的。活着的捐赠者应支付与捐赠有关的所有费用，但不得超过一个固定的数额。这使他们的家庭能够养活他们;恢复时间(顺便说一句，肾脏受伤了);差旅费用;照顾孩子……
事实上，捐赠者必须用自己的假期/病假时间来捐赠，虽然实际的医疗费用是从我弟弟的保险中支付的，但所有的相关费用都是他的。这是不公平的。
I think expenses up to, let's say, $10,000 should be allowed, or funeral costs up to the same. It isn't payment for the organ, it's an allowance to absorb the costs of donating...

One of Professor Satz's central arguments is that legalizing the sale of body parts would impose a cost on people who do NOT want to sell their body parts. I take it this is just an opportunity cost (if I sold my kidney, I'd make some money, so when I don't sell my kidney, I have that much less money).
But creating an economic opportunity doesn't result in my actually losing anything at all. It is my choice not to sell my kidney either legally or illegally, and so even while organ sales are illegal, I have less money than I would if I sold my kidney. Regardless of the legality of organ sales, I don't actually lose anything I have when I encounter an opportunity cost.
I'm not at all confident that organ sales should be legal, but I don't think this opportunity cost argument is a good reason to keep organ sales illegal. Then again, I'm not an economist.

Although I do agree with your post, I have my own reservations.

To my thinking, the social morality (and the legality) of organ selling is and should be intrinsically tied to the propensity and severity of the fraud and exploitation that it will entail.
A certain amount of fraud or exploitation is inherent in the market, as anyone whose ever bought a packet of sea monkeys, or taken a telemarketing job can testify. This is why we have wage and truth-in-advertising laws.
But in most cases, the consequences are relatively minor. If you take a job that sucks, you can quit. If you buy a bunch of brine shrimp imagining that they would form a fun-loving, utopian civilization before your eyes, you're only out a couple of bucks, which you can right off to experience. Not so with an organ transplant.
If you sell your kidney and later realize that shortening your life by ten years wasn't worth the used camarro you bought with the proceeds, it's too late. There's nothing you can do (short of buying someone else's kidney, perhaps) that will mitigate the damage that's already done.
If you sell a kidney under duress or in following self-serving medical advice from someone looking to buy your kidney, the organ is gone, your lifespan is considerably shortened and there's nothing you can do about it. You can't simply chalk it up to experience and you can't quit being a former kidney donor. You can sue the person or organization that defrauded you, but even if you win, that won't bring your kidney back. The simple truth of the matter is that when it comes to organ-selling, there's no way to adequately address the consequences of someone being swindled out of a kidney. Any legal protection that matters must happen on the front end of that transaction.
如果你允许人们将他们救命的器官变卖，人们就会有很大的动机去欺骗和利用它们。以这种方式受害的后果是如此可怕，鉴于这些事实，我认为一个社会有道德义务和法律权利介入，监管甚至禁止器官买卖，而其他更良性的交易不会这样做。

It is of some interest, I think, to consider that the entire enterprise of organ donation and transplantation was the stuff of science fiction, not so many decades ago. Be that as it may, there are numerous arguments, for and against this miracle of modern medical science.
Certain fundamentalists may argue against it on religious and/or moralistic grounds. Science, on the other hand, is more pragmatic and generally unfettered by religious dogmas and moral high ground: we have done it; we can do it; it extends lives (for some or many); and, some folks (or their medical insurers) can or will pay the price.
Black marketeering is only one of many ways in which humanity engages in corruptive behavior. We should not be so shocked, because it is also a part of world economy.
An ex-coworker "gave up a kidney" for his brother, about fifteen or twenty years ago. He died before I retired. I think the brother (younger and diabetic) died also. We do the best we can with what we have. Sometimes.

捐赠器官是非常光荣的。购买它们意味着有些人不在同一个公平的竞争环境中。富人应该得到更多吗?这是你必须问自己的问题。