Marley, can you please address this question?
Paying a willing person more for something than what they value it as, can no way be said to be victimization without rendering that word meaningless.
The number of organs donated is X and the number of organs that would be donated if people were allowed to sell them is X+Y. Y is then equal to the number of people who die because of the ban on selling organs. Almost 4,000 people die every year because of a lack of donated kidneys. Once a price was established those without the money to pay themselves could do fundraisers or turn to charities. There is no reason anyone would have to go without a kidney.
I think it has been, actually. There are now 100 million registered organ donors in the U.S., which is an increase of 45 percent since 2006. So it sounds like things have improved a great deal.
So… can we have your liver?
Since I’m an organ donor, you or someone like you can have my liver when I’m done with it. 
I am under two impressions. One impression is that poor people already are crowded out by rich in terms of organ transplants because organ transplants already cost money, even without organ sales. The other is that the act of profiting on organ transplants is somehow abhorrent to you. But the second is now revealed to be a mistake of mine, as you have no problem with people making a profit on organ transplants or donation… as long as it isn’t the donors. If you make the plastic boxes to transplant organs, that’s ok. If you have a patent on anti-rejection drugs, that’s ok. If you live in a mansion and drive a Bentley from your salary as a transplant doctor, that’s ok. But if you’re poor and have a kidney you don’t need as much as what it would sell for, well, tough luck bub. When you die from exposure or starvation, we’ll take it then.
Assuming you have a cite for this, the answer is fixing the health care system, not having cash-strapped people sell their organs.
It is entirely possible that organ transplants are generally free. If you think this is the case, and want a cite to the contrary, then I am willing to stipulate that they are free for the sake of discussion, because that really is irrelevant to either of our positions.
From a very low base, although that is quite surprising. But those are organs from dead people which is less relevant. If you want to increase the number of dead people’s organs around for transplant, encourage more motor cycling 
- and make relatives who won’t donate the dead person’s organs social pariahs - these people really are disgusting and once again it’s religion to blame.
Finn, No one would want my liver
Your claim was that poorer people are already being crowded out of the system.
I was under such an impression, yes. I seem to recall this being a salient feature of arguments for socialized medicine. (Which I support. Not socialized insurance, but socialized healthcare.) But if you think I am wrong on this point, I am not even willing to argue it. Rich and poor have equal access to transplants now, there is no disparity in healthcare, if you wish. I really don’t care what the setup is, honestly, with respect to this discussion. I should not have even mentioned it.
I said I assumed you had a cite and that any problem on that score should be dealt with through fixes to the health care system, not organ trafficking. Still, that’s some quality sarcasm and strawmanning and goofiness. Truly excellent!
Well, that’s a remarkably astute position, that access to healthcare should not be corrected by permitting organ sales, but should be corrected by adjusting access to healthcare. Pip pip.
I will ask for the last time, would you be ok with a proposition which allowed people to sell their organs to the abstract medical establishment, so long as those organs could not be purchased by people on the waiting list, and that such organs only went to people on the list?
Feel free to ignore it again, of course. I don’t want to be too pushy.
No, I wouldn’t.
Why?
I’d like to see more publicity given to exchanging kidneys. Kidney exchanges are another way to go to the head of the line, and there are at least six companies working to make links between motivated donors.
The simplest exchange is a paired exchange. Say Bob needs a kidney and his brother, Bill, is willing to donate one. But Bill isn’t a match for Bob. Bill can offer to donate his kidney to an exchange company/program, which matches Bob/Bill to Sally, who is willing to donate for her father Dan. Sally isn’t a match for her father, but she is a match for Bob. And, fortunately, Bill is a match for her father. The exchange company charges a fee to oversee the paired donations, but with an average wait of five years for a flat donation, it’s usually worth it.
Here is a recent NYT article about it. Most exchanges aren’t paired, but exchanges among 3 to 5 donor/recipient pairs. The article traces a record-breaking 30/30 exchange. From the article:
The article also mentions that kidneys from live donors last longer after transplant than kidneys from cadavers do. The company featured in the article specializes in ‘domino chains’ of donations, rather than trying to make circular exchanges. They leverage a donor willing to donate to anyone at all into a chain that ends with a recipient that has no donor.
I agree. So the obvious solution is to legislate that the government owns all corpses and will extract as many usable body parts as it can and provide them to the needy without charge (as it should for all medical needs).
Or is this another situation where selfishness and squeamishness trumps compassion and solidarity, but the free market must be allowed to deliver a partial solution for the rich?
In this situation, where so many lives are in the balance, I think it is unreasonable to wait for death. The government should type and match all people and mandate live donations where needed.