Your editorial “Our View: Innovation required to ease organ shortage” (April 10) points out that many people need organs that could be given by living donors.

One impediment for potential living donors is the fact that federal law prevents the sale of organs. As you write: “While nobody supports dismantling safeguards against allowing rich patients to exploit the poor for their organs, we must also acknowledge that the current system has disadvantages for both low-income donors and low-income recipients.”

Change “nobody supports” to “few support,” and the statement is accurate. But it makes sense to discuss an alternative.

Safeguards are already in place. For example, the United Network for Organ Sharing website says: “In order to qualify as a living donor, an individual must be physically fit, in good general health, and free from high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, kidney disease and heart disease. Individuals considered for living donation are usually between 18-60 years of age.”

Suppose a rich person purchases an organ from a poor person. This would usually be a kidney, although it could be one lobe of a lung, or part of a liver, intestine or pancreas. Both people benefit: The rich person loses money but gains an organ or part of an organ, and the poor person gains money but loses an organ or part of an organ.

In both cases, the transaction is voluntary. We may safely assume that that loss to the poor person does not impair his or her health.

Where is the exploitation?