John and Ken start out by listing some dizzying statistics – in 2006, 6000 people in the US died awaiting organ transplant and only about half of those who could donate, did. They review a brief list of reasons for and against selling organs: aiding the financially-needy (who are willing to sell organs for money) and the organ-needy one the one hand, violating donor’s personhood and exploiting the poor on the other.

黛布拉·萨茨加入了肯和约翰的谈话，他们开始思考为什么器官市场的运行应该遵循效率原则之外的任何东西。这些考虑是否如此强烈，以至于认为根本不应该有市场?在强调反对器官市场的道德原因的同时，黛布拉指出，由于器官市场几乎从未被合法化，关于器官市场在现实世界中是如何运作的没有太多可靠的数据。

Ken and John then ask Debra about some of apparent inconsistencies of outlawing an organ market. If people may donate blood, then why not organs? Given that there are many individual cases in which organ donation is noble, why does it become smarmy when the market gets involved? Debra recaps some of the best arguments for an organ market, but also draws some bottom lines: in particular, the percentage of donors who regretted selling their organs, after the fact, when there was a legalized organ market in India.

约翰，肯和黛布拉最后探讨了器官市场最好的可能版本是什么，如果有这样的市场的话。在美国，个人死后必须“选择”接受器官捐赠;在欧洲，个人必须选择退出。为什么我们不应该拥有后者呢?黛布拉建议建立实物期货市场，个人或他们的家庭通过未来的实物捐赠而不是金钱支付。Ken和John讨论了单一买家和分销商系统。他们最后强调了问题的复杂性和复杂性。

• Roving Philosophical Report(seek to 5:50): Julie Napolin interviews David Magnus, director of Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, who talks to her about the dynamics of the organ donation game. He discusses the rules for solicitation, directed donation, and finding real friends.

• 60-second Philosopher(seek to 49:20): Ian Shoales uncovers frightening – but mostly false – stories about organ scandals and thefts.