I recently read an article, in one of the weekly newspapers, regarding the sale of organs - kidneys, to be exact. I had expected the article would be totally against this idea, and asking governments and international bodies to stop it, regulate against it and ensure that the poorest in society, wherever they are, are not selling their organs to raise cash. Yet, the article was clearly all for it, just with a bit of regulation, as if it were telecoms or trade in cars or some other commodity. It is an argument that seems to be made increasingly frequently nowadays.

But organs are not a commodity; people should not be allowed to sell them. Donation under the right circumstances, yes; donating for cash, no.

I think we all understand the emotional aspects of donating an organ to a family member or friend, and the donation of blood but having a global trade in organs, doesn't seem right to me and is one of the more obscene aspects of globalisation and capitalism that surely even the most financially-focused among us would question. There has to be a more ethical solution?

As far back as 2003, reports were coming out of Estonia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Russia, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine indicating people were selling their second kidney for a few thousand dollars. These donors felt it was the only way to get out of poverty. There was no evidence that these people ever did climb out of poverty.

The reports suggested that these donors continued being poor and risked major health problems in the future, if, their remaining kidney failed. The few thousand dollars wasn't going to provide sufficient dialysis in countries with little or no health systems.

And these countries are not even among the poorest. The risk is that people in the poorest African and Asian countries will be encouraged to donate a kidney or something else, when sanitation and health systems are already poor and therefore offer increased risk of losing the remaining kidney.

The centre for Bio-Ethics at the University of Minnesota produced this report asking if selling a kidney was the same as selling a human egg (ovum). Its conclusions were as follows:

The closest we should come to a market for eggs or organs is to provide reimbursement for the costs associated with the donation such as payment for lost wages and transportation; and at most provide a standard and consistent monetary incentive to encourage altruism. We should not be paying donors to ignore or overlook the risks of their donation, and the higher the pay the more likely that is to happen.

I don't know what anyone else feels about it; I doubt any Cif reader has known the poverty that would force us into selling an organ. But if any organisation is suggesting allowing it, albeit regulated, we should really be speaking up. Scientists and health researchers devise new and wonderful alternatives to surgery and transplant all the time, and this should be the route we take.

We are all happy to protest and question the trade in endangered species. Trade in human organs should induce as strong a moral response. We are constantly trying to stop the commodification of humans in the form of slavery; to permit the selling of organs in a global market would be, to me, a step backwards.