> We now have 66 years worth of Kidney transplant data to show it's safe for both parties, but a lot of people needed to participate in what was a new, risk, ex

> We now have 66 years worth of Kidney transplant data to show it's safe for both parties, but a lot of people needed to participate in what was a new, risk, experimental surgery to get us to this point. Uh, technically that's true, but the risks are not the same. The first successful kidney removal (nephrectomy) was in 1869. It wasn't for a donation, it was for a woman suffering an uncloseable fistula which, without the operation, would have killed her. So what exactly was she risking? By the time someone was allowed to volunteer to donate a kidney in 1954, nephrectomy had the better part of a century's worth of data and refinement of technique. Compare this to the risk you're proposing: With current measures which seem to be working, there's a good chance that most people don't get infected. So you're proposing that healthy individuals who would likely not contract the virus, be intentionally infected with a disease which he only have an approximate mortality rate for, and that we have no idea of the long-term effects of. Surely you can see how the first risk fits withing "First, do no harm", while the risk you're proposing simply doesn't.