In a recent article, Albertsen both elaborates the best option argument for regulated markets and levels a justice-based objection to kidney sales. In the present article, I show that Albertsen has crucially misunderstood the best option argument. It is not a defence of kidney sales, as Albertsen claims. It is a reply to an objection. The objection, perennial in the debate, opposes kidney sales on the grounds that sellers would be harmed. The best option argument—proving that prohibitions tend to set (...) back the interests of those denied their preferred option—shows this thinking to be confused. If sound, the best option argument dramatically undercuts any attempt to oppose a market citing would-be sellers’ interests. (shrink)