"Guilty of Saving Lives" by Daniel Akst (via marginalrevolution)
This piece in the Atlantic is very much in the spirit against Radin's Contested Commodities, which was reviewed a while back.
His analogy to prohibition is off if we see body parts and beer as in a fundamentally different class of objects. His language is also strong at times, implying at one point that the issue is a simply yes or no: "It quotes a medical ethicist at my own alma mater arguing that it's better for people to die than buy organs" (where the quote really makes no explicit reference to him saying he think it's better for people to die than buy organs).
But at other times, he makes good points that are difficult to defend. For example, how do we wrestle with this point aside from saying that we need to abolish our entire conception of markets in society? Perhaps that is indeed what we need to do, but it's a much larger problem than simply reforming our democratic society in the spirit of Radin's criteria:
The unearned piety of those who condemn these transactions strikes me as outrageous. If someone has the right to abort her own fetus, why does she not have the right to sell her own kidney?
Of course, you can make the same argument for prostitution or wage labor. The problem is, how do we constructively debate with people who take this view?