[NickMPK]

My big problem here is that the organs would not be distributed to the people who need, or deserved, them most. Obviously, there is a lot of room for debate about how we define "need" and "desert", and how we balance between them, but I don't think the market is a good substitute.

For example, let's say the current system saved 10 lives and the market would save 12. The market may sound better. But what if those 10 people who got the organs currently were people were all fourty-year olds with small children, while most of the 12 people saved under the market were 80-year olds who probably wouldn't survive five years after the transplant? Under this situation, saving ten lives is better if each of those ten people live forty more years while each of the twelve live only five more years.

This is an exaggeration, but I definitely believe that a greater percentage of transplant patients would be people who were older, otherwise high risk, and who engaged in behavior that would make the transplant less likely to be successful.