Lydia of What's Wrong with the World has a though-provoking post on exploitation and the sale of organs. She comes to the right conclusion about whether or not it is permissible for Christians and general good, but doesn't seem firm in her conviction that it can be a respectable good. Here's my take on it.

The principle objections that doesn't resort immediately to mindless emotionalism are that it is exploitative and that it reduces man to a utilitarian entity. The exploitation argument doesn't inherently hold up, and is the weaker of the two. It makes no sense to argue that it is economically exploitative to pay even "just" $10,000 to a third world peasant for a healthy kidney when that money actually have a powerful impact on their quality of life. Let's say it's $25,000. That much money would effectively turn the average African peasant into a firmly middle class member of their community.Given the prospects of their life with two kidneys, but without such a large windfall income, it's laughable to argue that they're being exploited, and also serves to infantilize the person into someone who is incapable of acting in their own interest. If a rich man offered $250,000 to a typical third worlder, it's seriously doubtful that anyone would seriously call that exploitation; the argument only works when the price is such that it provides little benefit to the party giving up the organ.

Now the argument that it is a reduction of man to a utilitarian entity is problematic because there are other "utilitarian" uses for human parts that are not considered immoral, such as donating hair clippings to Locks of Love. Fundamentally, this argument is based on a romantic vision of human life that ignores the real good and quality of life increase that has the potential to take place via the sale of one's organs. It is of the same nature as the argument used by the pharisees that the Sabbath law was absolute, and that breaking it to save a man's life or rescue his property from destruction was a sin in that it ignores the fact that the preservation of life is a far greater calling that adhering to ritual and philosophy.

Making it illegal for parents to sell their organs upon their death is also problematic for Christians because it ignores both the fact that there is no scriptural "bright line test" on this issue in general, and that there is a sound, scriptural argument to be made for allowing a parent to sell their organs as part of their last will and testament in order to build up their estate. In this case, the parent's actions are not only beneficial to someone who may need those organs, but allows them to further meet their God-given duty to support their family even in death. Appeals to social goods on this issue are rooted primarily in a secular, egalitarian ethic whereas scripture lends support to a parent who would sell off their organs for the benefit of their family upon their demise.

This all assumes the absence of coercion and a willingness on the part of the receiving party to pay a rate that both parties feel is comensurate with the value of the organ.