Selling Human Organ A farmer in an Indian village wants more than anything else in the world to send his child to college. To raise money, he sells his spare kidney to an American in need of a transplant. A few years later, as the farmer’s second child approaches college age, another buyer comes to his village and offers a handsome price for his second kidney. Should he be free to sell that one, too, even if going without a kidney would kill him (Sandel 72)? Some might object that, regardless of whether the practice already exists, it is clear that legalizing it would make it worse. Not only that, but it seems like the person would become like a marketplace selling his organs. If someone had mentioned that they want to donate their kidney to someone and dies, then it is fine. Then suppose that the person starts selling his kidney or any other organ of his body. Basically he or she is doing it for money, but what if the person's other kidney got damaged? Then what would the person do? Besides it will be a stronger cause of corruption because many people are poor and need money to feed their families so they sell their kidneys; however, this may cause future health problems to that person. Selling organs is wrong and it should not be allowed. Selling an organ is menacing, even for those organs which can be removed without killing the donor. Murphy say,“isn’s it more dangerous to have black market organ transactions?”(1). This is normally the first protestation embossed after anyone introduces the subject of manufacturing organs into material. You cannot gain an advantage from the sale of your organs if you are not alive. This problem is best addressed by allowing a futures market in organs. In a futures market, individuals could sell the right to harvest their organs after they die. Benefits would become part of the individual’s property, and would be paid to