> Also prior living donors are given priority This does not conflict with the Marginal Revolution post. Tabarrok is suggesting a policy where registered poten

> Also prior living donors are given priority This does not conflict with the Marginal Revolution post. Tabarrok is suggesting a policy where registered potential organ donors (i.e., people who sign up to be organ donors in the event of their own death) should receive priority if they later need an organ. There are vastly more such people than living donors. > Secondly, organs are GPS tracked. This seems wrong. If they all were tracked, it would be a very silly mistake to make to claim otherwise. The most likely resolution is that the organ transport firm who works with this particular doctor (the commenter's spouse) does do tracking, but that tracking is not universal and perhaps not common. In which case Tabarrok's criticism would stand. Here's the source of the claim that GPS tracking is not required, which indeed notes that some transport firms track and some do not: > Jones noted that his firm ships organs only on direct flights and uses GPS tracking to monitor them. > However, GPS tracking isn’t universal — or required by UNOS or HRSA. Some couriers and airlines use it; many don’t. Many OPOs monitor organs through a combination of verbal handoffs, automation and label scans, Brown said. https://kffhealthnews.org/news/how-lifesaving-organs-for-transplant-go-missing-in-transit/ https://kffhealthnews.org/news/how-lifesaving-organs-for-tra...