Hall of Shame:

A Note to our Readers: With this article, Natasha Berger will be ceasing her weekly catalogue of lunacies known as Hall of Shame. But she'll be back next week with a new and longer column -- look out for it!

Unless I've fallen victim to a Swiftian ruse, it seems The Wall Street Journal's Richard A. Epstein is serious when he suggests the process of organ donation would be smoother under market rules. In his own words:

Sound ghoulish? Bear with me. The standing American policy of the distribution of transplant organs can be summarized in one proposition: It is divine to give, but evil to sell. Altruism is chic; individuals are encouraged to give their organs at death and even during life. And they do, chiefly to close family members.

This organ hoarding is not inevitable, Epstein argues. If only we paid people to donate at death, laws of supply and demand would ensure a steady flow of organs to people who need them. Meanwhile, the extra money would make the donor's funeral expenses easier to cover. Everybody wins.

Just how a supply inherently limited by catastrophic injury, genetic compatibility and religious beliefs will respond to cash incentives remains murky, at best.

Fortunately, Epstein doesn't believe in an entirely laissez-faire organ exchange; some regulation, he acknowledges, might be necessary. And that's a good thing, because in Epstein's organ economy, wealth begets health:

I believe that individuals should be able to use their own wealth to purchase organs, and that public agencies and charitable organizations should be allowed to use their funds to supply organs, as desired, to the needy.

Dick Cheney, this is your lucky day.

See "Have a Heart. We'll Send the Bill." in OpinionJournal.

Thanks to Jessica Chapel.