Here is yet another example how laws are the wrong tool to produce morality. No matter how many words legislation uses, still the bread-slice can fall on the buttered side, harming the good rather than the evil.

Laws should be limited to one objective: to protect those who wish to be protected by them.

It is legitimate and even commendable for the law to protect people against coercion to give up their kidney, say as debt-collection. Yet man-made laws are necessarily blind and cannot distinguish between real coercion and people who voluntarily try to do the right thing. The external, physical act being the same - how possibly could they?

The most the state may therefore do is to ask those people who appear to be victims, whether indeed they are and whether they wish to receive the state's protection in that matter. Perhaps it is even OK for the state to err on the side of caution, but once it is clear that no coercion was taking place, the state must step back.

Finally, while unconditional organ donations should be applauded, conditional ones should not be thrown out. While indeed, the official Organ Donor Registry should not be obliged to accept neither conditions in general nor specific conditions, if it doesn't, then people should be able to establish their own private registries and conduct their own private organ transplants. All the state may legitimately do about it, is to ensure that no coercion takes place.

Like assisted suicide this is a huge, complex, legal question.