There are all sorts of things it is possible to say about Argentina and its politics. Most of which we’ll not say because far too many of them descend into a jingoistic - but most enjoyable - prodding of the anthill. You know, this is what a century of corporatist politics looks like and all that. There is one thing though. On this laddie who has just won a plurality of the votes in the primary elections:

Far-right candidate who wants to legalize organ selling wins Argentina's presidential primary

So far we’ve not investigated and we’ve no idea whether the gentleman, Sr Milei, is far right, right or even centrist. But organ selling?

The only place we know of that actively encourages “organ selling” in this sense is Iran. Which does not allow organ selling of course. It is not possible to turn up at a hospital with a bleeding heart, or half a liver, or a kidney, and bargain over the price to be paid.

What is possible is that those who are willing to provide one of their two kidneys to someone who will die without one - Iran has a shortage of dialysis machines, even they don’t work forever even if they had a sufficiency - can be compensated. There is a state fund which does such compensating - of the order of a year or two’s median income plus free healthcare for life - and it is also possible for larger, private, arrangements to be made.

Many other places in the world allow live kidney donation. On the grounds that there simply never are enough usable cadaver ones to solve the problem of people dying of kidney failure. But those donors must be donors, not compensated providers.

Iran is the one place in the world where people do not die while waiting for a kidney. Everywhere else some do, each and every year. This is not a coincidence, it is not mere correlation. People who elsewhere would die gain a continuation of life simply because the Iranian Mullahs are not precious about incentives. They may be all sorts of things (one of us has had significant links with the place) on other subjects but upon this one they’re being wholly pragmatic. If offering healthy folk who will remain healthy some cash to save the lives of others saves those other lives then why not?

Incentives matter, after all.

We don’t see compensated organ provision - assuming a controlled market, not that turning up with a fresh piece of offal and asking for bids - as being far right in the least. Simply a sensible policy that saves lives.