> I do not like the thought of desperate people selling their internal organs to survive one bit.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repugnant_market
Do you prefer desperate people have fewer options? Especially, do you prefer taking options from people that they prefer to take?
Yes.
For an individual poor person, one could argue that the individual would be better off if they were allowed to sell their internal organs. But this isn't just about individuals, this is about societies. A society which pushes poor people towards selling their organs to survive is worse than a society which doesn't do that, in my opinion.
This is not true at all. Debt collectors acting on their own can't take anything. A court can force you to sell certain things if you lose a lawsuit, but many assets are protected. They can't seize your 401k, in most states they can't take your primary residence unless the debt was taken on to purchase it in the first place, they can't garnish more than 25% of your income (and in some states can't garnish anything for consumer debt), they can't take social security income, and so on.
We already allow shades of that, and society hasn't collapsed.
Ie we seldom allow people to consent to outright death, but we certainly allow them to take on a great deal of risk of injury or death in return for fame or money. If you repeat a 1% chance often enough, you are going to hit the jackpot sooner or later.
So I'm not sure your reductio ad absurdum works here.