I would sit down with Fred and Lucy and talk with them about Betty. Betty is a single mother of 5 young children whose father was tragically killed in a work accident and is also a perfect match with Fred and Lucy. She too is going to die quite soon without a transplant and leave 5 young orphans with no one to care for them as all of her relatives live in Dafur and are peniless.How will Betty feel if lucy gives her kidney to Fred simply because he has maoney and Betty Does not? How will Fred live with the knowledge that there are 5 orphans whose mother could be alive to care for them if he had not bought the kidney and Lucy had given it to Betty?

Oh, it gets worse.
假设弗雷德，虽然他确实需要一个肾，但实际上他*现在*并不需要。他做个大概五年的透析就可以了，但是这样的压力持续五年之后，他的另一个肾也会衰竭，他就完了。所以他没有付钱给露西买她的肾，而是找到了她并介绍了自己。他确保她的住房状况得到改善，在她的工作让她无法照顾这些事情的那几周，他雇了一个清洁工和厨师，每周都会过来和她交谈，仔细倾听她的问题，并提供她所能提供的任何支持。他对她的孩子们很感兴趣，实际上还支付了他们私立学校教育的大部分费用。
There's no quid-pro-quo going on here, but of course, after five years of this, Lucy feels pretty grateful. She happily agrees to donate a kidney to her good friend Fred.
As it turns out, the time, money, and effort Fred spent on Lucy and her children is worth exactly $200,000. Should Lucy be prevented from giving her kidney to Fred? If not, is there any serious way in which this differs from Fred just giving her the $200,000 in exchange for the kidney? In some sense, isn't this sort of thing just as coercive? After all, Fred did take advantage of Lucy's situation; his actions might not have been nearly as effective in gaining her loyalty had she not been a poor single mother.
还有len，不是每个人都可以给别人捐肾的。还有器官相容性的问题需要担心。如果找不到这样的贝蒂怎么办?如果，事实上，弗雷德是唯一一个需要一个不会排斥露西的肾脏的人呢?

Properly supervised, there is nothing ethically incorrect about either the sale or donation of any body part. It is only when coercion and duress arise that we have any serious issues that threaten essential human rights. There is a black market in body parts that we choose to ignore because it is such an uncomfortable issue. If we managed the process openly, there would be a greater chance to regulate the exchange, thereby protecting everyone. Right now, we all have our heads well and truly buried like the proverbial emu.

Life is tough. Betty has no money and no friends and no kidney? Well, that's survival of the fittest. Nobody said life would be fair and balanced. You either stay 100% healthy and self-sufficient, or develop a support network, or use your other skills to put away enough money to cover any concerns that pop up. Even then, you could get a rare face-eating bacteria, you never know. But the POINT is: purely on principle, should it not be our right to decide what happens to our bodies? I can decide if I get a piercing, or implants, or surgery... if I want to sell a part for profit, I think the government is overstepping it's bounds by insisting it be donated and go to waiting list of strangers. And hey, I have some rather socialist viewpoints generally, but it's MY body and I want the deciding vote in what I do with any and all parts of it.

It looks like stem cell technology, etc., will soon render this discusion moot.

如果器官买卖的道德不是行为本身固有的，而是由这种行为如何影响总体市场决定的，那么是否可以合理地得出这样的结论:它在某些社会中是一种道德制度，而在其他社会中则不是?举个例子,如果我们不过于关心一个女人故意卖她的肾脏的情况下,没有强迫,一大笔钱和她相称的损失,那么这是否意味着更道德上可以接受的允许出售器官一个富裕、受过良好教育的社会,更加规范,要比让它像印度这样的地方,在那里你有十亿绝望的人,无知的健康风险,但不愿意出售自己的肾脏吗?
如果是这样，那么我想知道，在一个特定的社会中，决定实践是否道德的道德支点究竟在哪里?如果只有一个人会因为开放人体器官市场而受到如此剥削，那么这是否就否定了这种行为对其他人的道德标准呢?或者，就此而言，如果稍微超过一半的捐赠者能够得到足够的补偿和通知，这样做就可以了吗?