In making decisions about allocating scarce organs, undocumented immigrant status should not be used as a proxy for the legitimate criterion of likelihood of success because uncertainty about future ability to pay or insurance coverage applies to almost everyone listed for transplant.

Geographic disparities in availability of organs for transplant have spawned for-profit companies that help patients get on waitlists in more than one region and arrange travel for them if an organ becomes available.

The responsibility for deciding who to place on the waiting list for an organ transplant is enormous, and the criteria are not clear-cut.

The AMA Code of Medical Ethics' opinions on organ transplantation.

The United Network for Organ Sharing’s geographic allocation system is outdated and inequitable, particularly in light of improved ability to transport organs. Allocation should be based on common medical criteria, not accidents of geography.

The United States government’s insistence that organs can only be procured through altruism, rather than being exchanged or purchased, contributes to the very exploitation of people of color in developing countries it sought to prevent.

The pauses the transplant community has taken, at various times throughout the history of transplantation, to make sure that transplantation was truly a boon to patients represent genuine ethical engagement.

We really can't promise both more transplants and better outcomes. The controversies over organ allocation really represent intellectual exhaustion in the face of a long series of inadequate policy responses to the decade-long trend of the kidney supply increasing only at the expense of organ quality and patient outcomes.

Unclear regulations and informal data gathering on immigrants who receive or donate organs can cause mistrust and suspicion of the organ allocation system and affect donation rates.